Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed two appeals against a common judgment dated 04.06.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Railway Court, Pune, in R.C.C. No.70 of 1994. Criminal Appeal No.982 of 2001 challenged the acquittal of respondents (original accused Nos.1,2,3,5,6) for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (R.P.U.P. Act). Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2002 sought enhancement of sentence awarded to accused No.4. The case arose from an incident on 12.2.1994 when R.P.F. Naik Jamdade (P.W.1) intercepted a truck and recovered railway property, including fish plates and bearing plates, from the possession of the accused. The trial court acquitted five accused and convicted accused No.4, awarding a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500. The State appealed against the acquittal and sought enhancement of sentence. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove that the recovered property was stolen or unlawfully removed from railway premises. The witnesses admitted that the property could have been scrap or discarded material. The court held that the presumption under Section 3(a) of the R.P.U.P. Act arises only after the prosecution establishes theft of railway property. Since the prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that the property was stolen, the acquittal of the accused was justified. The court also noted that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 - Section 3(a) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must first prove that the property in question is railway property and that it was stolen or unlawfully removed from railway premises; only then does the presumption under Section 3(a) arise against the person found in possession. In the absence of evidence of theft, mere possession of railway property does not attract the offence. (Paras 5-8) B) Criminal Appeal - Acquittal Appeal - Interference with Acquittal - The appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court's appreciation of evidence, if plausible, cannot be substituted. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is sustainable in law?
Final Decision
Both appeals dismissed. Acquittal of respondents in Criminal Appeal No.982 of 2001 confirmed. Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2002 for enhancement of sentence dismissed.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove theft of railway property
- Presumption under Section 3(a) of R.P.U.P. Act arises only after proof of theft
- Acquittal cannot be interfered with unless perverse
