Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
H.N. KAPOOR, J.
State - Appellant
Versus
Shivendra Pratap Singh – Respondent
Appeal No : Govt. A. No. 3174 of 1973
Decided on : May 08, 1979
RAILWAY PROPERTY (UNLAWFUL POSSESSION) ACT - SECTION 3 - CONFESSION - SECTION 162 CRPC - INTERPRETATION - ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSION - UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF RAILWAY PROPERTY - PROOF - SUFFICIENCY - SENTENCE - ADEQUACY OF FINE.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a chargeman in a railway workshop, was found in possession of two coils of railway property without any authority. He admitted the recovery of the coils and stated that he had committed a mistake. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the confession was hit by Section 162 CrPC and that the prosecution had failed to prove that the coils were railway property.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the confession was not hit by Section 162 CrPC, as the enquiry conducted by the Railway Protection Force officer was not an investigation for the purposes of that section. The court also held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the coils were railway property and that the accused was in unlawful possession of them.
Issues: 1. Whether the confession was hit by Section 162 CrPC? 2. Whether the prosecution had proved that the coils were railway property? 3. Whether the accused was in unlawful possession of the coils?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the confession was not hit by Section 162 CrPC, as the enquiry conducted by the Railway Protection Force officer was not an investigation for the purposes of that section. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in State v. Durga Prasad, AIR 1974 SC 2136, which held that an enquiry under Section 8(i) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 by an officer of the Railway Protection Force cannot be deemed to be an investigation for the purposes of Section 162 CrPC. 2. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the coils were railway property. The court relied on the evidence of the accused's admission, the recovery of the coils, and the evidence of experts that the coils were being used by the railway and had been supplied by the manufacturer to the railway. 3. The court held that the accused was in unlawful possession of the coils. The court relied on the accused's admission that he had no authority to take the coils out of the workshop and that he had committed a mistake.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal, and convicted the accused under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The court sentenced the accused to a fine of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only). In default of payment of fine, the accused was to undergo R. I. for one year.
H. N. Kapoor, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the State against the order and judgment dated 11-7- 1973 of Special Railway Magistrate, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. The prosecution case as revealed in the FIR and by the prosecution evidence briefly stated is as follows : Respondent -Shivendra Pratap Singh was the chargeman in Traction Assembly Stores, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi. On 24-12-1971 at about 4.30 P. M. after finishing his duty he wanted to leave the workshop by lorrygate on his Motorcycle. Pawan Kumar Madan (P. W. 3) Inspector, RPF was on duty. Because the respondent wanted to leave in a hurry Pawan Kumar Madan felt suspicious and he stopped him. He directed Nizamuddin Ansari (PW 9) A. S. I., R. P. F. to make a search of the motorcycle. He, accordingly, took search of the motorcycle in the presence of Pawan Kumar Madan (PW 3) and Devi Paltan Lal (PW 2) Rakshak R. P. F. On search, two coils of cable wires Exs. 6 and 7 wrapped in a polythene and having the labled reeling slips lead seal from the tin box which was attached to the carrier of the motorcycle of the accused was recovered. A. S. I. Nizam Uddin prepared the search and seizure memo Ex. Ka. 6 and the copy of the same was given to the accused. They were sealed at the spot in the same tin container Ex. Ka. 3. Nizam Uddin took the accused along with the sealed tin container to the R. P. F. Post D. L. W. Ram Prasad Singh Rakshak (PW 4) then made necessary entries in the general diary at 5.15 P. M. at the instance of Sri Ansari. Enquiry of this case under Section 8 of the Act was made by A. S. I. Nizamuddin himself. He inspected the site and prepared the site- plan Ex. Ka. 6. The sealed articles were kept in the Malkhana. Parvesh Ji Arora (PW 1) who was the senior chargeman, D. L. W. Varanasi inspected both the articles at the R. P. F. Post under tie orders of the Superintendent, Traction Assembly Shop. The goods were taken out from the workshop by A. S. I. Nizamuddin and after inspection they were again sealed and kept in the Malkhana. Sri Arora had found the seal intact and had compared it with title sample seal. He submitted his report Ex. Ka. 3 after examining those cable wires. He gave his expert opinion that that type of material was being used in D. L. W. Traction Assembly Shop. A. S. I. Nizam Uddin had also gone to Poona in order to make enquiry from the firm which supplied those goods to D. L. W. Sri K. B. R. Rao, Technical Manager (PW 6) Western Insulated Cables Ltd. Poona gave his opinion in writing which is Ex. Ka. 9 that the cables with the reeling slips which had been shown to him had been despatched to D. L. W. siding vide challan No. PC/5905 dated 22-4-1970. The sealed bundles were taken to Poona by A. S. I. Nizam Uddin accompanied by his superior officer, Inspector Pawan Kumar Madan (PW 3). M. R. Hawlikar (PW 7) who was the Chief Tester in India Cable Co. Ltd. Poona also examined those cables and prepared test sheets Ex. Ka. 12 and Ex. Ka. 13. According to him the reeling slips which were Ex. 10 and Ex. 11 tallied with the material which was sent in that batch. He being the chief tester used to check each batch before it was despatched. The accused had also made a statement in writing dated 24-12-71 (Ex. Ka. 17) before the A. S. I. Nizam Uddin (PW 9) soon after his arrest. After completing the enquiry, A. S. I. Nizam Uddin filed a complaint Ex. Ka. 18 against the accused who was duly tried.
2. The accused admitted that the cables Exs. 6 and 7 were recovered from the tin carrier of his motorcycle. It was, however, not locked and he did not know who had kept these goods in the tin carrier. He stated that he himself was surprised as to who had kept these articles in his carrier. He then stated that those cables were not used in D. L. W. because they did not bear any marking of the D. L. W. He, further stated that he did not kno
AI
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
