Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K.PATTANAIK
Ajaya Kumar Patra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Orissa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.K. PATTANAIK, J.
1. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner in terms of Section 401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. assailing the impugned judgment passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2005 by the learned Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Gunupur dated 28th June, 2006 for having confirmed the order of conviction and sentence directed against him by learned J.M.F.C., Bissam Cuttack in G.R. Case No.110 of 1995 (T.R. No.1057 of 1995) on the grounds inter alia that the same is liable to be interfered with for not being in accordance with law and in conformity with the materials on record.
2. The petitioner and other accused persons were chargesheeted under Sections 379 and 411 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (in short, ‘the Act’) and all of them faced trial and ultimately, the learned J.M.F.C., Bissam Cuttack acquitted others but found him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 411 read with 34 and of the Act and imposed a sentence to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with a default sentence of R.I. of 2 months. No separate sentence
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.
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....
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.
Mere possession of stolen property is insufficient for conviction under Section 411 IPC without proof of the accused's knowledge that the property is stolen.
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.
Knowledge of stolen property is essential for conviction under Section 411 IPC; mere possession is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
For conviction under Section 411 IPC, prosecution must prove accused's possession of stolen property and knowledge of theft, beyond reasonable doubt.
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....
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
