The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the requirement for recording confessional statements as per the legal provisions.

M.T. Joshi, J.

Out of the present seven appeals, four appeals i.e. Cri. Appeals No. 448/2000, 50/2001, 359/2001 and 238/2001 are filed by the Union of India while the remaining three appeals i.e. Cri. Appeals No. 362/2000, 443/2000 and 7/2006 are filed by the State of Maharashtra, aggrieved by the acquittal of all the respondents in respective appeals in separate criminal cases registered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways), Aurangabad on the basis of the complaint filed by the Inspector, Railway Protection Force (R.P.F.), Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under section 3 (1) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short, "RPUP Act"). All the respondents were acquitted in respective complaint after trial and, therefore, the present appeals.

2. The respondents were charged either of being in unlawful possession of the railway property or assisting in committing theft of railway property. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, however, in each of the cases, held that the charge was not proved against the respective respondents.

3. The appeals, in each of the complaint, will have to be decided on its own facts. However, since common arguments were advanced on the issue of maintainability of the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra and the value of the alleged confession said to have been recorded by the investigating agency, these two questions are being decided in common while each of the appeal would be decided on its own facts independently by this Court.

4. As already observed, the complaint in each the case was filed by the Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Aurangabad, after making investigation in the crime. It is thus admittedly an independent agency empowered to make investigation into the offences under the provisions of Railway Property (unlawful possession) Act, 1966 and the Rules framed thereunder i.e. the Central Act. Three out of the present seven appeals, as detailed above, however, are filed by the State Government.

5. It was canvassed on behalf of the acquitted respondents that in view of the provisions of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as amplified by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of "Lalu Prasad Yadav and another v. State of Bihar and another", reported in AIR 2010 SC 1561, the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra are not competent.

6. On the other hand, Mr. D.V. Soman, learned special counsel for the appellants submitted that though the three appeals are filed by the State of Maharashtra, the documents filed on record in the appeals would show that the instructions were issued by the office of the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Bhusawal to the Public Prosecutor for filing of the respective appeals. In the circumstances, in effect, these are the appeals filed on the instructions of the Central Agency which has carried the investigation into the crime. Therefore, merely because the State of Maharashtra is shown to have filed the appeals, the same are through Chief Secretary Commissioner of Railways and therefore, the appeals are maintainable.

7. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, runs as under:

"378. Appeal in case of acquittal.[( 1) Save as otherwise provided in subsection (2), and subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (5),-

(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognisable and non bailable offence;

(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court [not being an order under clause (a)] or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.]

(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been inves