IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that confessions made to non-police officers must be corroborated by independent evidence, and procedural compliance is essential for the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Robin Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) for the appellant, Union of India. Also heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms. D. Borpujari, learned legal aid counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. In this appeal, under Section 382 Cr.P.C. read with Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has put to challenge the correctness of otherwise of the judgment and order dated 07.08.2010, passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railway), Tinsukia, in SR/CRNo.84/2005 [RPF/POST/TSKG(P) Case No.1(9)04, under Section 3(b) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966]. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 07.08.2010, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent No.1, Sushil Agarwala and respondent No.3 Bhrigu Shah from the charge under Section 3(b) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present criminal appeal, are adumbrated herein below:-

“Acting on a tip off, on 13.09.2004, Shri Jayanta Das, Sub-Inspector, RPF(CIB), Tinsukia Headquarter along with other officials of RPF(CIB), Tinsukia Headquarter, and the Officer-in-Charge of Tinsukia Police Station, Shri A. Gogoi, conducted search in the scrap godown of Sushil Agarwal situated at Makum, Tinsukia and found 12 gunny bags, containing some materials lying on the ground inside the godown and also found four persons, while dealing with the said materials, and when asked they disclosed their names as Sushil Agarwala, Dinesh Shah, Shyam Rai and Monoj Tataya. Then on checking the bags, materials belonging to railway carriage and wagon and miscellaneous fittings (aluminum) in cut pieces were found. Then on interrogation, Dinesh Shah disclosed that he had brought the materials from Dibrugarh and sold the same to the scrap damp own by Sushil Agarwala and the bags were unloaded by one Shyam Rai and Monoj Tataya, who were the workers of the scrap godown and they could not give any satisfactory reply and also could not produce any document for possession of the aforesaid materials. Then owner of the damp Sushil Agarwal managed to escape from the godown, but other persons, namely, Dinesh Shah, Shyam Rai and Monoj Tataya were taken into custody and the 12 nos. of gunny bags, containing the scrap materials were seized containing carriage and wagon fittings such as Axle box cover, widow channel, from the spot in presence of witnesses.

Thereafter, complainant Jayanta Das has lodged one complaint, upon which Case No.1 (9)04, at the RPF post Tinsukia, was registered and S.I. A. Das was endorsed to conduct enquiry. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer had carried out the enquiry and he had examined the witnesses and also recorded the statement of accused Dinesh Shah, who confessed that his brother Bhrigu Shah was also involved in the case and he had a discussion with Sushil Agarwala regarding the purchase and selling of the railway materials and disposing of the same at the scrap godown of Sushil Agarwal. The Inquiry Officer then seized the Truck, bearing Registration No.AMZ-9288 and arrested the driver of the same, namely, Mahendra Rai and the driver also confessed that 12 nos. of gunny bags containing the railway materials were loaded in the Truck from the scrap godown of Bhrigu Shah at Naliapool, Dibrugarh and he brought the same to the scrap godown of Sushil Agarwal at Makum on 13.09.2004. Then, after completion of enquiry, the Inquiry Officer has submitted prosecution report under Section 3(a) RP(UP) Act, 1966 against accused Dinesh Shah, Monoj Tataya, Shyam Rai and Mahendra Rai to stand trial in the Court and under Section 3(b) of the RP(UP) Act, 1966 against accused Sushil Agarwala and Bhrigu Shah. Upon the said complaint, the learned Trial Court had taken cognizance of the offence and issued process to the respondents and on their appearance and after recording evidence, the