IMPORTANT POINT
Once appellate court arrives at a conclusion and judgment of acquittal is passed in favour of accused person after considering materials on record, scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction becomes very limited.

JUDGMENT

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.—Heard Mr. Saurav Kumar, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

3. Heard Mr. Suraj Kishore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.

4. This criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 03.08.2002 passed by learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has set-aside the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.09.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Railway Court, Madhupur in G.O.C.R. Case No. 17 of 1997 / T.R. Case No. 258 of 2000 and allowed the appeal preferred by the Opposite Party No.2 herein and acquitted the Opposite Party No.2 from the charge under Section 3(a) of the RP(UP) Act, 1966.

5. The learned trial court had convicted the Opposite Party No.2 under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (unlawful possession) Act, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as RP(UP) Act, 1966] and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

6. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court and submitted that the petitioner was the informant of the case and the Opposite Party No.2 was convicted by the learned trial court, but the learned appellate court has acquitted the Opposite Party No.2 and accordingly, the present criminal revision application has been filed against the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned appellate court.

7. While advancing his arguments, the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that one of the defences taken by the Opposite Party No.2 was that the goods were purchased from Maa Durga Trading Company and Krishna Enterprises, who were the auction purchasers, and the Opposite Party No.2 had purchased the goods from them and accordingly, he was a bonafide owner of the goods. In support of the contention, the Opposite Party No.2 in defence had produced Exhibits- A & B and the seized articles did not exactly match with the goods which were mentioned in Exhibits- A & B. The Opposite Party No.2 had further taken the defence that no witness from Maa Durga Trading Company or Krishna Enterprises was produced before the learned trial court to substantiate the deals.

8. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that the learned appellate court has failed to consider the facts that the present case was preceded by theft reports as contained in Exhibits- 5 to 5/6 and the goods seized were not scrap materials and accordingly, the Railway cannot be said to have sold the goods in auction. He submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court was a well-reasoned judgment, but the learned appellate court has not considered the aforesaid aspects of the case in proper perspective and therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse and calls for interference.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Parties

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, on the other hand, opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that there is very little scope for interference in the judgment of acquittal. He submitted that the learned amicus appearing for the petitioner has not been able to refer to any material which has not been considered by the learned appellate court while passing the judgment of acquittal. He submitted that the entire evidence has been considered by the learned appellate court and even the seizure of the goods, which were produced before the learned trial court, was doubtful in view of the fact that the seized articles did not have any marking on them.

10. He further submitted that although the theft reports, were exhibited before the learned trial court as Exhibits- 5 to 5/6, but no TIP of the