ORDER :

1. Since issues in both the aforesaid revision applications are connected with each other hence both these applications are being taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners of both the aforesaid applications has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2011 passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sahibganj in R.P.S. No. 9 of 1998 (T.R. No. 26 of 2011), whereby the petitioners were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the R.P. (UP) Act and were sentenced to undergo RI for two years each along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, has been affirmed.

3. The prosecution story in brief, as reflected from the written report of complainant, S.S. Paswan, ASI/RPF/Barharwa is that on the basis of confessional statement of accused Sukchand Sk. a raid was conducted on 28.4.1998 at the shop and godown of other co-accused Habbu Sk. @ Gulam Hussain and Manzoor Sk. from where Railway properties i.e. bearing plate, brake block, tie bar, CST-9 plates, ACS wire, steel trough sleeper etc. were recovered for which no valid documents or authority were produced. It has further been alleged that at the time of raid both the accused persons namely Habbu Sk. and Manzoor Sk. fled away from the place of occurrence, as such the accused persons, namely, Deanand Haldhar and Tullu Sk. who were running the shop and godown on that point of time were arrested and in their presence, seizure list was prepared and copy of the same was given to them.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that he will confine his argument only on the question of law and he will not canvass any argument on evidence. He further submits that the learned trial court has committed an error that copy of seizure list has not been provided to the accused persons who were running the shop and godown, as such the whole factum of seizure becomes doubtful inasmuch as there is no examination of any independent witness which has been taken into consideration.

5. He further submits that Rule 222.1 of RPF Rules requires that all the cases of crime affecting railway property shall be entered in the “localized” crime register or in the “un-localised” crime register. In the instant case the said register was not placed before the learned trial court and has been exhibited which is mandatory as per the settled principle of law. He further submits that the procedure outlined under the RPF Rules is that there should be entries in the crime register and the same should be produced and exhibited before the court. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of The State/Railway Protection Force vs. Raju.

6. Based upon the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order is wholly erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

7. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. supports the impugned orders and submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the petitioners. Further this crime is rampant in the area as such no relief should be granted by this Court.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

9. For proper appreciation of this case few provisions of R.P.F. Rules, 1987 requires to be mentioned.

10. Rule 222.1 of RPF Rules, 1987 requires that all the cases of crime affecting railway property shall be entered in the “localised” crime register” or in the “un-localised” crime register, as the case may be. Rule 222.1 is in relation to “theft or pilferages or misappropriation of the railway property.” Railway property could be “booked consignment and railway material.”

11. Rule 222.1 requires the reports of crimes against railway property