In this criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction for unauthorized possession of railway property but reduced the sentence from one year to six months simple imprisonment.
Sentence reduced from one year to six months simple imprisonment.
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.
Bail Slip
The Petitioner / Appellant / Accused-I namely Rajan S/O
Jeyaraman was directed to be released on bail as per the order of
this court dated 30.04.2015 in MP 1/2015 in Crl.RC.NO.427 of 2015
on the file of this Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.R.C.No.427 of 2015
Rajan
... Petitioner/Appellant//Accused-1
Vs.
The State represented by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Railway Protection Force,
Arakkonam. ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section
397(i) and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the Judgment in
Crl.A.No.77 of 2013, on the file of the learned Additional
District Sessions Judge-II, Ranipet, dated 26.02.2015, in respect
of confirming the conviction in the judgment passed in C.C.No.89
of 2011, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Arakkonam, dated 19.07.2013.
The convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein.
2.The respondent/Railway Protection Force has filed a
charge sheet in Crime No.3 of 2011, alleging that the accused was
found in unlawful possession of Railway property and when PW1 was
in charge, based upon the source information on 08.05.2011, at
about 09.15 p.m., find that the accused was carrying Polithin Bag
and on search, it was found that unlawful possession of 15
numbers of Fan Roll Clips without any sanction or authority and
accordingly, after following the procedure, the respondent police
had filed a complaint and thereafter, investigation has been
completed and final report has been filed in Crime No.3 of 2011
for the offence under Section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act and the same was
taken on file as C.C.No.89 of 2011, before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Arakkonam, Vellur District. After the trial, the
learned Judge has convicted the accused for the offence under
Section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act and sentenced him to undergo one
year simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against the same, the
accused has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.77 of 2013 before the
learned Additional District Sessions Judge II, Ranipet and the
learned Judge by an order dated 26.02.2015, has dismissed the
appeal. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case has been
preferred by the accused before this Court.
3.Before the Trial Court during the course of trial, on
behalf of the prosecution one Ajaykumar, who is the Sub-Inspector
of Railway Protection Force was examined as PW1; Karupudevan, who
is a Head Constable was examined as PW2; Martinroy, who is a
Constable, was examined as PW3; Ravikumar, who is a Constable,
was examined as PW4; Selvam, who is an Assistant Engineer, was
examined as PW5 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the
defence no witness has been examined and no documentary evidence
has been filed. Material objects MO1/15 numbers of Fan Roll Clips
& MO2/one Polithin Bag were marked.
4.Heard both the learned counsels and perused thematerials placed on record.5.Mr.C.Samivel, Legal Aid Counsel, appearing on behalf of
the revision petitioner would submit that all the prosecution
witnesses are official witnesses. In the absence of any
independent witnesses, the alleged seizure and conviction could
not be relied upon and sentence awarded by the Trial Court is
excessive.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing
for the respondent would contend that the respondent police are
entitled for presumption under clause Section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act
and made submissions in support of the orders passed by the Trial
Court. PW1/Ajaykumar, who is the Sub-Inspector of Railway
Protection Force, based upon the source information, along with
his team viz., PW2, PW3 and PW4 have visited over the Arakkonam
Railway West Yard and found that the accused is in possession of
one Polithin Bag on suspicion they opened bag and found 15
numbers of Fan Roll Clips. The evidence of PW2 is that the
accused has voluntarily given confession statement, which was
marked as Ex.P2 and the railway property was seized under seizure
mahazar. PW3 could specifically deposed that since PW1 does not
know to write in Tamil, he only drafted the seizure mahazar and
also obtained the signature of the accused.
7.From the records, it reveals the fact that PW3 was not
cross examined to challenge the seizure mahazar or the signature
of the accused therein, assumes significance.
8.The specific evidence of PW5/Junior Engineer, Southern
Railways is to the effect that the material seized from the
possession of the accused is as per RTSO specification and it is
exclusively manufactured for Railways, does not avail in the open
market and the same is not subjected to any auction so for.
9.Relying upon the said evidence of PW3 and PW5, the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court has laid the conviction
accordingly. As stated by the PW3 and PW5, the attester of the
confession statement/PW2, was not cross-examined in the absence
of any challenge to the oral evidence of PW3 and PW5 and hence,
this Court finds that the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner is not sustainable. Further, the
evidence of PW3 and PW5 specifically goes to show that what was
seized by PW1 is exclusively the property of the Railway, which
does not available in public or open market and not subjected to
any auction process. The conviction statement and seized mahazar
eliminates the challenge.
10.In view of the Section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act, since, the
property seized is now found to be that of the Railway property,
in the absence of any sanction or authority to carry Railway
property, the accused has not produced any sanction or authority
letter to carry the said property, his possession is presumed to
be unauthorized possession and hence conviction under Section
3(a) of RP(UP) Act is sustainable.
11.It is noticed by the legal aid counsel that this is
first conviction of the accused and no other previous conviction
against the accused and accordingly, this Court is inclined to
reduce the sentence period from one year simple imprisonment to
six months simple imprisonment.
12.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands partly
allowed to the limited extent as indicated in respect of sentence
alone. Service of Mr.C.Samivel, legal aid counsel, is to be put
on record.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dua
To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,Railway Protection Force, Arakkonam.2.The Additional District Sessions Judge-II, Ranipet.3.The Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam.4.The Chief Judicial MagistrateVellore (For Information)5.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Copy To:
The Secretary Legal Service Authority
High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.427 of 2015
VBM(CO)
SB(04/10/2021)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act, presuming unauthorized possession of railway property, is sustainable.
Rajan
The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force, Arakkonam
RMT.Teeka Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court