Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Satish Dangudu Lohar and Another

Bombay HC6 Feb 2014APPLN/664/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad considered an application for leave to appeal against an order of acquittal under the RPUP Act. The Court held that the trial court's view was reasonable and no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal against the order of acquittal was refused.

What the court decided

The State of Maharashtra Vs Satish Dangudu Lohar… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Criminal Application No. 664 of 2013

¶4

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Inspector, Railway Protection Force, .. Applicant Parali, District : Beed. (Original complainant)

¶5

versus

¶6

Satish Dangudu Lohar, Age : 18 years, Occupation : Labourer, R/o. Indiranagar, Chakur, Taluka & District : Latur.

¶7

Shamal Kumar Mistry s/o. Pavitra Ranaj Mistry, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Bamni, Taluka : Jintur, .. Respondents District : Parbhani. (Original accused)

¶8

Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the applicant.

¶9

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 6TH FEBRUARY 2014

¶10

(2)

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant - State.

¶13

The respondent nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘ accused no.1 and accused no.2 ’ , respectively) were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 [For short, "RPUP Act" ], on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Inspector of Railway Protection Force. After holding a trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) (Railways), Aurangabad, acquitted them. Interestingly, neither the original complainant i.e. the Inspector of the Railway Protection Force, nor the Central Government is seeking to challenge the same; but it is the State of Maharashtra that has filed the present Application seeking leave to appeal against the said order of acquittal.

¶14

I have gone through the impugned judgment. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in support of the Application.

¶15

The case of the prosecution, as reflected in para 2 of the impugned judgment, is that, the accused no.1 runs a welding workshop and that, the accused no.2, who was serving as Assistant Station Master at Chakur Railway Station, and had unlawfully possessed railway property, he had handed over the said railway property to the accused no.1. On receipt of the information that the railway property was in the custody of the accused no.1, the said workshop was visited and on the property

¶16

(3)

¶17

alleged to be railway property being found there, a complaint was lodged.

¶18

The learned Magistrate observed that the workshop from where the Muddemal property was seized, was not owned by the accused no.1. One Raju, who was examined as prosecution witness no.6, was the owner of the said workshop. The Magistrate was of the view that the complainant i.e. the Inspector of Railway Protection Force had given a clean chit to the owner of the workshop and instead, caught hold of the accused no.1, who was merely working as a welder there. Further, the Magistrate observed that, that the property was handed over to the accused no.1 by the accused no.2 was sought to be established only from the statement made by the accused no.1 himself before the Inspector of Railway Protection Force. The Magistrate held this to be insufficient to hold the accused persons guilty.

¶19

The order passed by the Magistrate is proper and legal. In any case, the view of the matter, as taken by the Magistrate, is a possible view.

¶20

It is well settled that while considering an application for grant of leave, the principles of appreciation of evidence governing the appeals from acquittal, are required to be kept in mind. It is well settled that, where two views of the evidence adduced are possible and the trial court has taken one of those views, the appellate court would not interfere in the matter, merely because had it been the trial court, it might have taken a different view. It is also well settled that while granting leave, there should appear a reasonable possibility to the appellate court, to be

¶21

(4)

¶22

ultimately able to interfere with the order of acquittal.

¶23

No interference in the matter is warranted. Leave refused.

¶24

The Criminal application is rejected.

¶25

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY )

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

bgp/cria664

The State of Maharashtra v. Satish Dangudu Lohar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

The State of Maharashtra v. Satish Dangudu Lohar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveen Luthara and Others Vs Avr Logistic Pvt.Ltd and Others

Madhukar Sukhdeo Thube Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Manish Nandkishor Pediwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kishan Irbhaji Waghmare Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Satish Dangudu Lohar and Another

M/S Sabdra Infotech Vs Ravi Patil