Criminal appeal against acquittal for unlawful possession of railway property. The High Court found no evidence of theft or misappropriation, dismissed the appeal, and upheld the acquittal of the respondents.
Criminal appeal dismissed; order of acquittal affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.576 OF 2011 (A)
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA BY INSPECTOR
RPF, MYSORE. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
AND:
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O B H SHOUNATH ALI KHAN, DOOR NO.19, RAJAPUTHA BLOCK,
I N R MOHALLA, MYSORE.
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O B H SHOUNATH ALI KHAN, DOOR NO.19, RAJAPUTHA BLOCK,
N R MOHALLA, MYSORE. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI L M CHIDANANDAIAH FOR R1 & R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL
2
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT:14.07.10 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. C.J.M., MYSORE IN C.C.NO.960/03 – ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(a) OF THE RAILWAY PROPERTY (UNLAWFUL POSSESSION) ACT 1966.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.07.2010 passed in C.C. No.960/2003 by the Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mysore, acquitting the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.
3
accused being in unlawful possession of cement in railway quarters without the permission of the concerned authorities, have committed the offence.
4
5
same for their personal use. In respect of the said case, there was a CBI investigation and a report has been submitted wherein it is opined that Thomas John, Inspector, V.Kalaimani, Assistant SubInspector, M.V.Singh, Prabhakar have registered a false case against the accused persons and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under Sections 193, 211 read with Section 34 of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which clearly goes to show that the railway police have managed to file a false case against the accused persons with a vindictive motive and for their personal gain. There is no clinching evidence to show that the accused have committed the offence alleged against them. Thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966?
6
PW1 – V.Kalaimani is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force who has filed private complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 and he has given sworn statement before the court reiterating the allegations made in the complaint. He has stated about the search and seizure conducted at the spot namely the railway quarters bearing Nos.47/B and 17/B and has further stated that the accused had illegally stored the cement bags for their personal gains. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that they have seized only 70 bags of cement in the quarters and he do
7
not know whether the said cement bags were given to the accused / contractors. He has further stated that the cement bags seized by them were kept by the accused in the quarters of Railway Department.
PW2 - S.T. Prakash, who is a Junior Engineer - Works, Railway Workshop, has stated that he had put an indent for 300 bags of cement. Out of it, 120 bags of cement were earmarked for construction of cycle stand flooring and they were disbursed to the accused and the remaining 180 bags were kept in the store. In the cross-examination, he has stated that after issuing the indent, the gate pass was given to the accused / contractors and he knew that the gate pass given to Kaleemulla Khan (accused). According to the said witness, the only lapse on the part of the accused is that they being the contractors had not kept the cement bags at the work spot. Further, he admits that the police have not conducted the spot mahazar.
PW6 – Thomas John, who was the Inspector of RPF has recorded the statement of some witnesses. In the crossexamination, he has given evasive answers.
8
PW8 – M.V.Singh, who is said to be the root cause for the litigation has stated that he was managing the official railway quarters and has further stated that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were not in the said quarters, but he has not given explanation as to how accused Nos.1 and 2 were in possession of these quarters and had stored the cement bags in the said quarters.
PW10 – B.R.Pathalingam is the police constable of RPF, who
speaks about the search and seizure at the spot.
9
and the contractor will have to make his own arrangements for loading and unloading at from the Railway Stores Depot to the site of work. If it is discovered that the quantity of the cement or steel is less than the quantity ascertained as here-in-before provided, the cost of cement or steel not so used shall be recovered from the contractor. As per the said agreement, the accused have taken supply. Thus, the ingredients of theft, misappropriation or unlawful possession of the railway property by the accused does not arise.
10
RPF Post, Mysore, Kalaimani, ASI, RPF Post, Mysore, N.V.Singh, SE (Works), South Western Railways, Mysore and R.Prabhu, JE (Works), South Western Railways, Mysore, in filing a false case registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 namely Kaleemulla Khan and Sahebulla Khan. Thereby, they have committed offence punishable under Sections 193, 211 read with Section 34 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI report also indicates that a false case has been registered against the accused with the connivance of the prosecution witnesses.
11
with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I
pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SJ
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India
Sahebulla Khan
Kaleemulla Khan
Ashok G. Nijagannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
