IMPORTANT POINT
Without complete evidence of prosecution having come on record, the High. Court would 11M quash a proceeding u/s 482 Cr. P.C.

JUDGMENT

A.N. Dixita, J. These are four connected Criminal Misc. Applications under section 482 Cr. P.C; for (1) quashing the First Information Report registered as Crime No. 1 of 1982 under section 3 of the Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act. 1966, at Police Station R.P.F. Gorakhpur, (2) for quashing the Enquiry Report dated 29.6. J 983, and (3) for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1509 of 1983 pending against the applicants in the court of Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Gorakhpur.

2. It appears that on 26.11.l981 a public auction was held at Central Store Depot, NE. Railways, Gorakhpur, where lots of various store items were put up for auction by the Railways. Auction in respect of Lots No.1 081133/ 101, 1081134/41, 1081178/ll, and 1081314/11 concluded in favour of M/s Ram Krishna Satish Kumar of Kanpur. It is not necessary to mention the facts regarding the auction in great details and I proceed to mention only these facts which are necessary for the disposal of these applications. After the auction It appears that Panalal, the representative of the aforementioned purchaser firm took delivery of the first lot from the Central Store Depot. Gorakhpur, on 19.12.1981 On 9.1.1952 the aforesaid representative of the - firm went to Central Store Depot, Gorakhpur, for taking delivery of the remaining part of the auctioned goods. According to the applicants the auctioned goods were loaded in the truck but the R.P.F. personnel did not permit the transportation of the goods on the ground that Panna Lal with the connivance of the employees of the Central Store Depot and other persons was unlawfully taking away goods which were not auctioned to the aforementioned firm. It might be mentioned here that the employees who were suspected to be involved in the matter were suspended by the Railways. Panna Lal and two others who were found in the truck were taken into custody by the Protection Force. A first information report was lodged on 9.1.1982 against Panna Lill and two others under section 3 of the Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act, 1966 (for short the Act). During the investigation of the case the complicity of the remaining applicants alongwith some other persons in the commission of the offence came to light. After the completion of the investigation and submission of the enquiry report charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants under section 3/4 of the Act. The Magistrate took cognizance and Criminal Case No. 1509 of 1983 against the applicants is in progress where, as disclosed in the counter affidavit, seven witnesses have been produced on behalf of the prosecution.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that there is no legal evidence against the applicants and no case whatsoever is made out against them on the evidence produced and consequently it is a fit case where the first information report, the enquiry report and the proceedings in the Criminal Case ought to be quashed by this Court. Having given my anxious consideration to the matter I do not find myself inclined to accept the above contentions.

4. At this stage when the entire prosecution evidence has not come on record it would be to early to say that there is no legal evidence against the applicants. Had the entire prosecution evidence been led and had this Court been satisfied that it was unlikely that the said evidence would be accepted on their face value this Court might have exercised jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P.C. on the ground that there was no legal evidence against the applicants. Unlike that in the instant criminal case the Magistrate being prima facie satisfied about the commission of the offence has taken cognizance and the case is in progress. That being so at this stage it also cannot be said that no case is made out against the applicants on the evidence produced in the case.

5. That apart, the questions which these four cases themselves pose for determination may be mentioned. They' are: (1) Whether