CRL. LP. No. 182 of 2013

Page 1 of 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.L.P. 182 of 2013

THE STATE/RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE

....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar Singh, Advocate.

versus

RAJU

..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

O R D E R

06.02.2014

1. This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 9^th

October 2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) in

CC 100/3/2012 acquitting the Respondent accused of the offence under

Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966

(‘RPUP Act’).

Background facts

2. The case of the Railway Protection Force (‘RPF’), which is the

complainant, is that, on 7^thApril 2012, while the RPF officials were on

patrolling duty, they apprehended the accused near ‘Masjid’ at around

10:30 pm. The accused is stated to have been found in possession of one

SAB worth Rs. 8,000. When he failed to give any proper explanation as

regards the possession of the said railway property, he was arrested and

the property was seized. After completion of the inquiry, a complaint was

2014:DHC:724

CRL. LP. No. 182 of 2013

Page 2 of 12

filed. The pre-summoning evidence was dispensed with and the matter

was listed for pre-charge evidence.

3. At the pre-charge stage, the RPF examined Mr. P.S. Verma (PW1) and

Sub-Inspector (‘SI’) Mr. Prem Singh (PW2). After the charges were

framed against the accused under Section 3 of the RPUP Act, the

aforementioned witnesses were recalled for further cross-examination.

Additionally, the RPF examined Assistant Sub-Inspector (‘ASI’), Mr.

G.P. Meena (PW3), Constable Sattar Ahmed (PW4), Constable Ramesh

Kumar (PW5) and ASI Kabul Chand (PW6).

4. The prosecution case, as it emerged through the evidence of the above

witnesses, was that PWs 2, 4 and 5 were on patrolling duty and were

proceeding from the Coaching yard to Sadar Bazar, when they

apprehended the accused carrying a cylindrical object, which later turned

out to be an SAB. The seizure memo prepared by them was Exhibit

PW2/A. According to the RPF, the accused made a disclosure statement

(Exhibit PW2/B), pointing out the place of theft about which a memo

(Exhibit PW2/C) was drawn up, and also made a confessional statement

admitting to his guilt (Exhibit PW2/E). PW1 is stated to have issued a

theft memo (PW1/A) when he found one SAB missing between washing

lines 7 to 10 towards Sadar Bazar on 7^thApril 2012. On 19^thApril 2012,

PW1 verified the case property as being the same which was the railway

property and gave his report (Ex.PW1/B).

5. The Respondent accused denied the allegation and pleaded innocence.

2014:DHC:724

CRL. LP. No. 182 of 2013

Page 3 of 12

He stated that he had come to take bath near the railway station from

where he was called by a police official and locked up for two days in the

police station. A senior official came on the third day and told the accused

that he would be released after 1¹/2 months and gave him beatings.

The decision of the trial court

6. The trial court noticed that the Supreme Court has in State of

Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale AIR 1979 SC 1825

explained the three ingredients of Section 3 of RPUP Act, required to be

established by the prosecution, as under:

“(i) the property in question should be railway property.

(ii) it should reasonably be suspected of having been stolen or

unlawfully obtained and

(iii) it should be found or proved that the accused was or had been

in possession of that property.”

7. On the first ingredient, there was no doubt that the property in question

was railway property. As regards the other ingredients, the learned MM

first analysed the requirements under the Railway Protection Force

Regulations 1966 (‘RPF Regulations 1966’) regarding maintenance of

records and registers and opined that the failure by the prosecution to

bring on record the original DD entries concerning the departure of the

RPF officials for patrolling duty as well as the original DD entries

concerning the a