In an appeal under Section 378 CrPC against acquittal under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, the court held no perversity as the accused, an agent, was authorised to obtain stationery free of cost. Leave to appeal is declined.
Leave to appeal is declined.
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.
CRM-A No.510-MA of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A No.510-MA of 2011
Date of decision : 20.07.2012
State of Punjab
...Applicant-appellant
Versus
Gursharan Singh and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab, for the applicant-appellant.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)
The applicant-State seeks leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of the respondents vide judgment dated 21.10.2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, (for short, 'the trial Court')
On a complaint lodged by ASI Bishamber Singh, the respondents were put to face trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. It was alleged that on the basis of secret information, the accusedrespondents were apprehended and were found in possession of nine different items of Railway stationery. On enquiry, they admitted that
CRM-A No.510-MA of 2011
they had purchased the same from one Surinder Pal Ahuja, Store Keeper, DMS-II, without any authority.
Heard.
It is admitted case of the applicant that the accused, Gursharan Singh, was the agent of the Railways and therefore, he was authorised to get the stationery from the Railway store free of costs. During his cross examination, PW3, Kultar Singh, has also admitted this fact. SI Bishamber Singh, the Investigating Officer has also admitted that he received a letter from the Senior officials of the Railways for withdrawal of the case against the accused-Gursharan Singh. From appraisal of the impugned judgment, this Court is satisfied that no other view is possible.
Therefore, this Court finds no perversity in the impugned judgment and no ground for grant of leave to file an appeal is made out. Leave to appeal is declined.
Dismissed.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
20.07.2012 atulsethi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) CrPC against acquittal should be granted or declined.
Whether the impugned judgment acquitting the respondents is perverse.
Whether the accused were authorised to get railway stationery free of costs.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Punjab
Gursharan Singh
Another
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
