Back
1988 Supreme(All) 413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. N. Dixita
PANNA LAL - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
Cr. Misc. Appeal 9168 Of 1985
Decided On : 08/29/1988
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. The guilt or innocence of the accused is to be determined by the trial magistrate and the prosecution should be given an opportunity to prove its case.
Headnote:
RAILWAY PROPERTY UNLAWFUL POSSESSION ACT, 1966 - SECTION 3, 4 - QUASHING OF FIR, ENQUIRY REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS - APPLICANTS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF RAILWAY PROPERTY REASONABLY SUSPECTED OF HAVING BEEN STOLEN OR UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED - NO LEGAL EVIDENCE TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - APPLICANTS' GUILT OR INNOCENCE TO BE DETERMINED BY TRIAL MAGISTRATE - PROSECUTION TO BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE ITS CASE.
Fact of the Case:
Applicants were found in possession of railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. An FIR was lodged against them under Section 3 of the Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act, 1966. During the investigation, the complicity of other applicants and some other persons in the commission of the offence came to light. A charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants under Section 3/4 of the Act. The Magistrate took cognizance and Criminal Case No. 1509 of 1983 against the applicants was in progress.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was no legal evidence to quash the FIR, enquiry report, and proceedings. The court further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. The court also held that the guilt or innocence of the applicants is to be determined by the trial magistrate and that the prosecution should be given an opportunity to prove its case.
Issues: 1. Whether the goods seized from the possession of Panna Lal and others were or were not Railways property? 2. Whether or not the applicants were guilty of conspiracy or whether some others were guilty of such conspiracy? 3. Whether out of 286 bags seized only 50 bags were sealed by the police and the remaining bags remained unsealed and whether if the remaining unsealed bags contained material which were not actually auctioned by the Railways to the aforesaid firm, could the applicants be convicted for the offence under section 3/4 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution has produced evidence to clearly indicate that the material in question which was found in possession of Panna Lal in the truck was not the one which was auctioned. The analytical report of the Examiner has clearly revealed that the auctioned material is not the one which was found in the truck. 2. The court held that the prosecution at this stage cannot be throttled to prove by necessary evidence the lot which was auctioned. The case is in its infancy and in stalling of the prosecution evidence instead of securing the ends of justice would tentamount to be a clear abuse of the process of law was this could or would deny the prosecution an opportunity to establish the guilt of the applicants. 3. The court held that it is imperative that in order to secure the ends of justice the prosecution is given full opportunity and liberty to prove the ingredients as postulated in sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed with the case expeditiously and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
( 1 ) THESE are four connected Criminal Misc. Applications under section 482 Cr. P. C; forquashing the First Information Report registered as Crime No. 1 of 1982 under section 3 of the Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act. 1966, at Police Station R. P. F. Gorakhpur, (2) for quashing the Enquiry Report dated 29. 6. J 983, and (3) for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1509 of 1983 pending against the applicants in the court of Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Gorakhpur.
( 2 ) IT appears that on 26. 11. 1981 a public auction was held at Central Store Depot, NE. Railways, Gorakhpur, where lots of various store items were put up for auction by the Railways. Auction in respect of Lots No. 1 081133/ 101, 1081134/41, 1081178/li, and 1081314/11 concluded in favour of M/s Ram Krishna Satish Kumar of Kanpur. It is not necessary to mention the facts regarding the auction in great details and I proceed to mention only these facts which are necessary for the disposal of these applications. After the auction It appears that Panalal, the representative of the aforementioned purchaser firm took delivery of the first lot from the Central Store Depot. Gorakhpur, on 19. 12. 1981 On 9. 1. 1952 the aforesaid representative of the - firm went to Central Store Depot, Gorakhpur, for taking delivery of the remaining part of the auctioned goods. According to the applicants the auctioned goods were loaded in the truck but the R. P. F. personnel did not permit the transportation of the goods on the ground that Panna Lal with the connivance of the employees of the Central Store Depot and other persons was unlawfully taking away goods which were not auctioned to the aforementioned firm. It might be mentioned here that the employees who were suspected to be involved in the matter were suspended by the Railways. Panna Lal and two others who were found in the truck were taken into custody by the Protection Force. A first information report was lodged on 9. 1. 1982 against Panna Lill and two others under section 3 of the Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act, 1966 (for short the Act ). During the investigation of the case the complicity of the remaining applicants alongwith some other persons in the commission of the offence came to light. After the completion of the investigation and submission of the enquiry report charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants under section 3/4 of the Act. The Magistrate took cognizance and Criminal Case No. 1509 of 1983 against the applicants is in progress where, as disclosed in the counter affidavit, seven witnesses have been produced on behalf of the prosecution.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has contended that there is no legal evidence against the applicants and no case whatsoever is made out against them on the evidence produced and consequently it is a fit case where the first information report, the enquiry report and the proceedings in the Criminal Case ought to be quashed by this Court. Having given my anxious consideration to the matter I do not find myself inclined to accept the above contentions.
( 4 ) AT this stage when the entire prosecution evidence has not come on record it would be to early to say that there is no legal evidence against the applicants. Had the entire prosecution evidence been led and had this Court been satisfied that it was unlikely that the said evidence would be accepted on their face value this Court might have exercised jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P. C. on the ground that there was no legal evidence against the applicants. Unlike that in the instant criminal case the Magistrate being prima facie satisfied about the commission of the offence has taken cognizance and the case is in progress. That being so at this stage it also cannot be said that no case is made out against the applicants on the evidence produced in the case.
( 5 ) THAT apart, the questions which these four cases themselves pose for determination may be mentioned.
