Back
2001 Supreme(Cal) 76
High Court Of Calcutta
DEBIPRASAD SENGUPTA
SANTOSH KUMAR KARMAKAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. R. 1834 Of 1992
Decided On : 02/14/2001
DEBASIS ROY, MILON MUKHARJI, MONORANJAN BASU, RITU ARORA
The RPF officers are empowered to conduct searches and recover railway property without a warrant under Section 10 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act, and the confessional statements recorded during an enquiry under the Act are admissible in evidence as the proceeding is judicial in nature.
Headnote:
RAILWAY PROPERTY (UNLAWFUL POSSESSION) ACT - SECTION 3 (A) - SECTION 8 (1), 8 (2), 9, 10 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - CONFESSION - VOLUNTARY STATEMENT - JUDICIAL PROCEEDING - SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS DISCUSSED BY THE COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act for possessing railway materials without valid documents. They challenged the conviction on the grounds of illegal search without a warrant, inadmissible confessional statements, and lack of proof that the materials were seized from a godown owned by one of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
1. The search conducted by the Railway Protection Force (RPF) officers was lawful under Section 10 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act, which empowers them to conduct searches without a warrant prior to registration and enquiry of the case. 2. The confessional statements of the accused were admissible in evidence as they were recorded by RPF officers during an enquiry under the Act, which is a judicial proceeding, and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to such proceedings. 3. The prosecution proved that the materials were seized from a godown owned by the accused Santosh Karmakar based on the evidence and the licence issued by the Municipal authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the search conducted by the RPF officers was lawful without a warrant. 2. Whether the confessional statements of the accused were admissible in evidence. 3. Whether the prosecution proved that the materials were seized from a godown owned by the accused Santosh Karmakar.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 10 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act empowers RPF officers to conduct searches and recover railway property from any premises of other person prior to registration and enquiry of the case under the Act. 2. Section 9 of the Act makes the proceeding judicial and the RPF officers being non-police officers can record a confessional statement of an accused which will not be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. The evidence on record, including the licence issued by the Municipal authority, proved that the materials were seized from a godown owned by the accused Santosh Karmakar.
Final Decision: The revisional application was dismissed, and the accused petitioners were directed to surrender before the trial Court within a fortnight.
( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-8-92 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapore in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1991 thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 27-2-91 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Midnapore in U. R. Case No. 254 of 1982 (T. R. 269/83) convicting the accused petitioners under Section 3 (a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.
( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 15-8-82 at about 16. 30 hours P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 held an ambush, when they found accused Gurucharan Pasi and Nikhil Chandra Pramanick to carry one brake-beam and to enter into an incomplete structure of bricks having no roof. They followed them and caught red-handed with the said brake beam. Entering into the said structure they found another person named Shib Charan Pasi handling with railway materials. On being asked none of those persons could produce any valid document in support of their possession of such railway materials. All the three accused were arrested and the railway materials were seized under proper seizure list. On further interrogation the said accused persons disclosed that they were paid employees of accused Santosh Karmakar and they were working on his behalf. After completion of enquiry a complaint was filed against all the aforesaid four accused persons alleging commission of offence under Section 3 (a) of R. P. (U. P.) Act.
( 3 ) THE order of conviction and sentence was challenged in the lower appellate Court on various grounds, which have been successfully dealt with by the lower appellate Court and the same does not require any repetition. In the present revisional application mainly three points have been raised by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners. The first point raised by Mr. Mukherjee is that search was conducted in this case in violation of Section 10 of the R. P. (U. P.) Act. No search warrant was obtained before conducting search and seizure. But I am unable to accept such contention made by Mr. Mukherjee. Section 8 (1) of the Act provides that the R. P. F. officers start an enquiry under Section 8 (1) of the R. P. (U. P.) Act when any person has been arrested under Section 6 of the said Act by an officer of the Force or he has been arrested by any other member of the Force under Section 7 and is forwarded to the R. P. F. officer. Such arrest can be made by either of them when any person has committed or is reasonably suspected to have committed an offence under Section 3 (a) of the R. P. (U. P.) Act.
( 4 ) SECTION 165, Cr. P. C. provides the circumstances in which the officer in-charge of a Police Station or the Investigating Officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector can conduct the house search without a search warrant during the investigation of any case. This section has been made applicable to the R. P. F. officers also during an enquiry under the R. P. (U. P.) Act by virtue of Section 8 (2) of the said Act. The officer of the Force can also conduct a house search during an enquiry under the Act without a search warrant under certain conditions laid down under Section 165, Cr. P. C. In my considered view Section 10 of the R. P. (U. P.) Act empowers an officer of the Railway Protection Force to conduct a search and recover railway property from any premises of other person prior to registration and enquiry of the case under the R. P. (U. P.) Act.
( 5 ) THE next argument advanced by Mr. Mukherjee is that conviction in the present case is based on the confessional statements of the accused persons which were not recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that the officers of the R. P. F. failed to administer any caution or warning to the person making confessional statement. Non-compliance of such revision renders
