The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the non-cognizable nature of offences under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, and the procedural requirements for inquiry and filing of a complaint.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for applicants; and, Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, Advocate for complainant and Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned AGA for State of U.P.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") praying for quashing of proceedings of Case Crime No. 8 of 2003, under Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1966"), Police Station- D.L.W. Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as "RPF") Post D.L.W. Varanasi.

3. Case was registered at P.S. RPF Post D.L.W. Varanasi on 20.05.2003 alleging that a piece of Railway line was recovered from Vikas Singh and he was arrested with Railway property. When enquired from him, he told that applicants who were earlier Manager at petrol pump where he (Vikas Singh) was working, may be able to tell about the said property, since Railway property was lying at the petrol pump before employment of Vikas Singh. Vikas Singh was enlarged on bail by Sessions Judge, Varanasi vide order dated 24.05.2003. On 05.04.2004, Investigating Officer informed Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Eastern Region, Varanasi about the investigation, he is making in the matter. These proceedings have been challenged by applicants on the ground that offence under Act, 1966 is not cognizable in view of Section 5 thereof, hence, Enquiry Officer has only option of making enquiry and file complaint and no procedure is prescribed whereunder he may approach Magistrate concerned to inform about the proceedings conducted by him. It is also submitted that from G.D. Entry dated 20.05.2003 at Serial No. 37, it cannot be said that any offence has been committed by applicants under Section 3 or 4 of Act, 1966 and, therefore, report submitted by Enquiry Officer before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Eastern Region, Varanasi on 05.04.2004 is totally misconceived.

4. Learned AGA could not dispute that offences under Act, 1966 are non-cognizable but said that recovery of Railway property from Vikas Singh and statement given by him show prima facie involvement of applicants also and in any case, the matter is still under investigation and, therefore, it cannot be said that proceedings are liable to be quashed and no offence against applicants is made out or the procedure adopted by Investigating Officer of RPF is patently illegal.

5. Section 3 of Act, 1966 provides penalty for unlawful possession of Railway property. Section 6 authorizes a superior officer or member of Force to arrest any person who has been concerned in an offence punishable under Act, 1966 or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists of having been so concerned, without an order from Magistrate and without a warrant. Section 7 provides that any person arrested under Act, 1966, shall, if the arrest is made by a person other than the officer of the Force, to forward such person, without delay to the nearest officer of the Force. Section 8 of Act, 1966 provides:

"8. Inquiry how to be made -- (1) When an officer of the Force receives information about the commission of an offence punishable under this Act, or when any person is arrested by an office of the Force for an offence punishable under this Act or is forwarded to him under section 7, he shall proceed to inquire into the charge against such persons.

(2) For this purpose the officer of the Force may exercise the same powers and shall be subject to the same provisions as the officer in charge of a police station may exercise and is subject to under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), when investigating a cognizable case:

Provided that--

(a) if the officer of the Force is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall either admit him to bail to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or