Back
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Mofil Khan son of Late Nabira Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against the Judgment dated 17.09.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No.30/2012 whereby and whereunder the criminal appeal has been dismissed. The Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 06.09.2012 passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj in R.P. Case No.19/2003 / Tr. No.19/2012 has been affirmed.
3. The learned Trial Court has convicted the petitioner under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS R.P.(U.P.) ACT] and has sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 3(b) of R.P.(U.P.) Act and the period already undergone in jail custody was directed to be set off.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the basic ingredients for the offence under Section 3 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act has not been satisfied against the petitioner. Neither the allegation of theft has be
Constructive possession of stolen railway property suffices for conviction under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, and confessions recorded by RPF officers are admissible as evidence.
Point of Law : It is not disputed that the Railway Protection Force officer was entitled to make an enquiry under the RPUP Act and the officer under the said Act is not a Police officer for the purpo....
It would be dangerous to base a conviction under S. 3 of Act merely on fact that date of disappearance and date of purchase happened to be same without being satisfied with dates between articles mis....
The conviction for receiving stolen railway property cannot stand without clear evidence of theft and expert identification, highlighting the necessity for prosecution to meet its burden of proof.
The accused's failure to provide any explanation or plea regarding the unlawful possession of railway properties led to the affirmation of the conviction. The court also exercised its discretion unde....
The court upheld the conviction for unlawful possession of railway property, affirming the admissibility of confessions and modifying the sentence to that already served due to prolonged litigation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
