The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in choosing between imprisonment and fine under Section 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act, considering the value of the seized goods and the petitioner's circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 21.01.2003 passed by the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 25.09.2001 passed against the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Dhanbad in R.P. Case No. 138 of 1995 / T.R. No. 1181 of 2001 has been confirmed and the sentence has been modified and reduced from Rigorous Imprisonment of two years to Rigorous Imprisonment of one year.

4. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner under Section 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. In course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his arguments on the point of sentence of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and the present offence is first offence of the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 25 days and he was 28 years of age on the date of conviction i.e. on 25.09.2001 and accordingly, his present age is 48 years. Learned counsel further submitted that the offence is of the year 1995 and accordingly, 26 years have elapsed from the date of the occurrence and the allegation relates to theft of 15 pendrol clips which was valued at Rs.151 only. The learned counsel has also submitted that though the minimum sentence which has been prescribed under the RP (UP) Act for the first offence is for one year, but it also provides for imposition of fine only and accordingly, there is no impediment in modifying the sentence and imposing fine considering the facts and circumstances of this case. He submitted that accordingly the sentence be modified by imposing fine only.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party- State

7. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan opposed the prayer and submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. However, so far as sentence is concerned, he submitted that it is for the court to take an appropriate call in the matter of sentencing.

Findings of this Court

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that as per the prosecution case, on 18.08.1995, the informant i.e. P.W.-1 alongwith constable N.P. Singh was patrolling at Nimiyaghat Railway Station area at 04 P.M. and they noticed that to the west of the Platform Nos. 1 and 2, one person was coming with a hand bag containing some heavy material in it. On suspicion, they challenged him, but he tried to flee away, but was caught with the bag containing 15 pendrol clips for which the petitioner gave no satisfactory reply and did not show any paper and on being asked, he disclosed his name as Md. Sahid Khan and confessed his guilt. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith seized articles was brought to RPF/Post Gomoh, where he was produced before the inspector in-charge, R.P.F. Post, Gomoh.

9. On the basis of written report, RPF Post Gomoh Case No. 48 of 1995 dated 18.08.1995 was registered under Section 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act and production-cum-seizure list was prepared. Upon completion of inquiry, the inquiry officer of the case submitted prosecution report. Consequently, cognizance under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 was taken against the petitioner on 20.12.1995. The petitioner pleaded not guilty against the charge framed under the aforesa