The judgment establishes the mandatory nature of maintaining crime registers and the importance of following prescribed procedures under the RPF Rules 1987. It also emphasizes the need for voluntary and well-documented confessional statements in the absence of public witnesses.

1. This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 9th October 2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) in CC 100/3/2012 acquitting the Respondent accused of the offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (‘RPUP Act’).

Background facts

2. The case of the Railway Protection Force (‘RPF’), which is the complainant, is that, on 7th April 2012, while the RPF officials were on patrolling duty, they apprehended the accused near ‘Masjid’ at around 10:30 pm. The accused is stated to have been found in possession of one SAB worth Rs. 8,000. When he failed to give any proper explanation as regards the possession of the said railway property, he was arrested and the property was seized. After completion of the inquiry, a complaint was filed. The pre-summoning evidence was dispensed with and the matter was listed for pre-charge evidence.

3. At the pre-charge stage, the RPF examined Mr. P.S. Verma (PW1) and Sub-Inspector (‘SI’) Mr. Prem Singh (PW2). After the charges were framed against the accused under Section 3 of the RPUP Act, the aforementioned witnesses were recalled for further cross-examination. Additionally, the RPF examined Assistant Sub-Inspector (‘ASI’), Mr. G.P. Meena (PW3), Constable Sattar Ahmed (PW4), Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW5) and ASI Kabul Chand (PW6).

4. The prosecution case, as it emerged through the evidence of the above witnesses, was that PWs 2, 4 and 5 were on patrolling duty and were proceeding from the Coaching yard to Sadar Bazar, when they apprehended the accused carrying a cylindrical object, which later turned out to be an SAB. The seizure memo prepared by them was Exhibit PW2/A. According to the RPF, the accused made a disclosure statement (Exhibit PW2/B), pointing out the place of theft about which a memo (Exhibit PW2/C) was drawn up, and also made a confessional statement admitting to his guilt (Exhibit PW2/E). PW1 is stated to have issued a theft memo (PW1/A) when he found one SAB missing between washing lines 7 to 10 towards Sadar Bazar on 7th April 2012. On 19th April 2012, PW1 verified the case property as being the same which was the railway property and gave his report (Ex.PW1/B).

5. The Respondent accused denied the allegation and pleaded innocence. He stated that he had come to take bath near the railway station from where he was called by a police official and locked up for two days in the police station. A senior official came on the third day and told the accused that he would be released after 11/2 months and gave him beatings.

The decision of the trial court

6. The trial court noticed that the Supreme Court has in State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale AIR 1979 SC 1825 explained the three ingredients of Section 3 of RPUP Act, required to be established by the prosecution, as under:

“(i) the property in question should be railway property.

(ii) it should reasonably be suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained and

(iii) it should be found or proved that the accused was or had been in possession of that property.”

7. On the first ingredient, there was no doubt that the property in question was railway property. As regards the other ingredients, the learned MM first analysed the requirements under the Railway Protection Force Regulations 1966 (‘RPF Regulations 1966’) regarding maintenance of records and registers and opined that the failure by the prosecution to bring on record the original DD entries concerning the departure of the RPF officials for patrolling duty as well as the original DD entries concerning the arrest of the accused and the recovery of case property, rendered the prosecution case doubtful. Although DD entry No. 31 dated 7th April 2012 concerned the arrest of the accused, recovery of the case property and the original thereof was never produced in the Court. The second shortcoming was that no public person was associated with the inquiry, at any stage of the inquiry prior to the filing o