The Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed against the acquittal of A-2 for unlawful possession of railway property. The conviction was quashed due to insufficient evidence, as the property was not seized from A-2's possession.
Criminal Appeal No. 2360 of 2004 dismissed; acquittal of A-2 upheld.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2360 of 2004
JUDGMENT:
The appeal is filed against the acquittal of A-2 in Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool as against the conviction in C.C.No.623 of 1998 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal, Anantapur District.
The case of the prosecution is that on 04.08.1998 A-1 was apprehended while carrying a gunny bag containing railway property and he disclosed that the bag was received from A-2, who was a transport agent and the railway police seized 10 bundles of railway wire weighing about 25 KGs. Both the accused were convicted by the lower Court. A-2 has preferred the appeal, which was allowed by the lower appellate Court.
The point for consideration is whether the acquittal recorded by the lower appellate Court is just and reasonable?
POINT:
In order to sustain a conviction for an offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short “the Act”), it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused was found in possession of the railway property and that it was seized from his possession. Except the disclosure of A-1, who is said to have carried the bag from A-2, there is absolutely no other evidence. In fact a search is said to have been conducted and no railway property was seized from the office or house of A-2. The evidence of the Investigating Officer also clearly goes to show that there is no property belonging to the railways or any other property was seized from the possession of the accused. Therefore, the essential requirements for an offence under Section 3(a) of the Act are not established and the lower Courts have rightly acquitted
the accused. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal of A-2 recorded by the lower appellate Court.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 09-02-2012 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2360 of 2004
DATE: 09-02-2012
MR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal is just and reasonable given the lack of evidence of seizure from the accused's possession?
Whether the prosecution discharged the burden of proving possession of railway property under Section 3(a) of the Act?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A-2
N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
