State appealed acquittal in railway property possession case. Bench found prosecution failed to prove ownership of seized items per RP (UP) Act. High Court upheld acquittal and dismissed appeal.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7647 CRL.A No. 100073 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100073 OF 2017 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE RAILWAY POLICE FORCE, HUBBALLI, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
(BY SRI MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, AGA)
AND:
Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 26.04.2016 PASSED BY THE JMFC I COURT, HUBLI IN C.C.NO.570 OF 2009 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 26.04.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF & JMFC I COURT, HUBLI IN C.C.NO.570 OF 2009 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(A) OF THE RAILWAY PROPERTY (UNLAWFUL POSSESSION) ACT 1966 AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7647 CRL.A No. 100073 of 2017
JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for hearing on interlocutory application, with consent of both sides the appeal is heard on merits and disposed off.
It is alleged that on 19.12.2007 at about 8.00 a.m. while the complainant and his staff were on a watch between S&T signal pole no. SH 29 and SH 30 near S&T signal box no. BB 24 at Hubballi yard, on Mantur road, Hubballi. At that time they noticed one person carrying a polythene bag on his right shoulder and moving towards West to Easst side of Mantur road in a suspicious manner and when he was detained and enquired he did not give satisfactory answer, on checking the bag they found one Air Cooler Coiled motor belonging to Railways and
not produced any bill or voucher as to the said property and same was seized under panchanama. It is further alleged that accused no.1 revealed name of accused no.2 as he is a scrap merchant and purchase such property. Thus accused have committed offences punishable under Section 3(a) RP (UP) Act, 1966.
1) Whether the prosecution has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal?
2) What order?
Point No. 1 : In the negative
Point No. 2 : As per final order
Gowdar examined the seized property. PW7-S.B.Patil gave the
theft report on 14.12.2007. PW8-Keshav Goudar gave theft report on 16.12.2007; PW9-Simon Joseph also examined property; PW10-Govindarajan gave the theft report dated 18.12.2007; PW11-M.B.Gurushanta is an eyewitness to the theft dated 18.12.2007; PW12-M.G.Ranganath conducted the observation panchanama after theft report dated 12.12.2007 and PW13-A.Rajendraprasad is the pancha to Ex.P.41 and P.42.
no.2. The stock register maintained by the Department of Railways is also not produced before the Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7647 CRL.A No. 100073 of 2017
intimating the RPF regarding the theft of copper wire from AC coach no. 00127 on 12.05.2007
“26. The seizure date from accused No.1 is shown as 1912-2007 and it is said that one Air cooler coiled motor was seized under a panchanama. The crime is registered in Cr.No. 14/2007 on 19-12- 2007. It is said that the theft reports were received on 14-12-2007 and 18-12-2007 in respect of the said theft of copper wires. Ex. P 33 shows that DCR no 36/2007 was registered in respect of theft dated 12-12- 2007 and Ex. P 34 shows that DCR no 37/2007 was registered in respect of theft dated 16-122007 Also it appears Cr no 3/2007 and Cr no 4/2007 were registered as per Ex. P 33 and 34. If that was so it is not forth coming as to how the investigation was continued in this case in respect of those theft reports when separate crimes were registered. Even P.W. 1 does not depose clearly in respect of conduct of investigation in this Cr no 14/2007 when separate crimes it appears were registered. It is said that accused No. 1 admitted commission of theft of railway property prior to 19-12-2007 on two occasions. That on his voluntarily statement the cable wires and air cooler materials were said to be seized from accused No.2. But how ever the independent panch witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.4 and 5 deny the conduct of mahazar in their presence. P.W.6 and 9 who are said to have given a certificate after examining the property seized admit that there are no marks on the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7647 CRL.A No. 100073 of 2017
seized property which shows that the same belong to railways. Also as admitted by P.W. 1 he has not produced any documents to show that the seized property were in the possession of the railways prior to theft.
27. In a ruling reported in 1986 Cri. L.J. 764 in the case of Kiran Chandra Das Vs. State of Assam, it is observed that S.3 Offence under Proof - Accused found carrying some bearings while coming out of railway workshop - No workshop manual or register proved to show that the bearings seized were in possession of the railway administration - Evidence of chemical analysis and certificate from officer authorised to certify not produced - No other evidence to identify the bearings to be railway property - Held order on conviction could not be sustained. As such when P.W.6 and 9 depose that the seized properties did not contain the Indian railways mark and also as admitted by P.W.1 that he has not produced any documents to show that the seized property belonged to electrical department, in my opinion the prosecution has failed to establish that the seized property belongs to the railways. Though the official witnesses P.W1 to 3 depose about the seizure of the property from the accused no 1 and 2 but the prosecution has failed to establish that the seized property belonged to the railways. Therefore in my opinion benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused. Hence, for all these reasons, I answer the above points in the negative.”
record it is crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to
comply the mandatory provisions of Sec. 10 and 11 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 after seizure of property said to have been seized from accused nos.1 and 2.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
trial Court along with original records, forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
bvv
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal?
Whether the trial court properly appreciated the evidence regarding ownership of seized property under RP (UP) Act, 1966?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kiran Chandra Das Vs. State of AssamExplained¶60
1986 Cri. L.J. 764, Kiran Chandra Das Vs. State of Assam · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka, Represented by the Railway Police Force, Hubballi
Wazir Khan
Syed Shafee
G Basavaraja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
