Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Shakil on 7 June, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.GAUTAM :MM :DELHI
State Vs. Mohd. Shakil
CC No. 15/99
PS : RPF/SSB
U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966
JUDGMENT
a) The Sl. No. of the case : 399/03
b) Name of the complainant : ASI/RPF Jaivir Singh
c) The name & add. of accused : Mohd. Shakil, S/o. Mohd. Sahid
R/o. Quarter No. A16/125 C,
Inderlok, Delhi.
d) Date of commission of
offence : 28.08.1999
e) Offence complained of : U/s 3 RP (UP) Act 1966
f) Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Convicted
h) Date of such order : 07.06.2007
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISIONS :
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on 28.08.1999 at about 16.10 hours between JOBGNA, Near Pole No. 6/15, Jhakira Bridge, within the jurisdiction of RPF Post SSB accused was apprehended by RPF staff and found in possession of 12 pendrul clips as per seizure memo Ex. PW2/A worth of Rs. 350/ belonging to Railway department reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained and thereby accused persons committed an offence punishable U/s. 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966.
Page No. 1
2. After completion of enquiry complaint was put to the court for trial. The accused was summoned and copy of complaint was supplied to him.
3. Prosecution in all to prove its case cited as many as Five witnesses and out of them examined Three witnesses. Before proceeding to any conclusion let we analyse the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
4. In precharge evidence prosecution examined PW1 Shri Subhash Chand, Section Engineer, NR, Shakur Basti testified that on 28.08.1999 he issued memo Ex. PW1/A in respect of 10 pendrul clips which were found missing from lines after visiting site. On 14.09.1999 he examined the case property i.e. 12 pendrul clips at RPF office and issued his report Ex. PW1/B. PW1 testified the case property in the court. PW1 was cross examined by the accused.
5. PW2 HC Bhaljeet Singh is the witness of the spot who was accompanied with the EO at the time of occurrence and during enquiry and he testified the same in his deposition before the court.
6. PW3 ASI Jaivir Singh is the Enquiry Officer who testified the facts of the case and enquiry conducted and documents prepared by him in this case.
7. Thereafter precharge evidence was closed and from perusal of material produced on record and testimony of prosecution Page No. 2 witnesses a prima facie case U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act was made out against the accused. Accordingly on 19.02.2004 charge U/s. 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966 was framed out against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Accordingly in aftercharge evidence PW3 came forward for his cross examination but accused did not cross examine him.
9. During the course of trial accused pleaded guilty for the crime in question and moved application to this effect. Accusation was duly explained to accused despite that he repeatedly pleaded guilty. Accordingly aftercharge evidence was dispensed with. On 22.05.2007 statement of accused U/s. 281 Cr. P.C. was recorded in which accused admitted all allegations put against him by the prosecution and prayed for lenient view.
10. I have heard Ld. APP for the RPF and accused in person and have gone through the material on record. APP for the RPF submitted that the prosecution has examined material witnesses and proved its case against the accused as such accused may be convicted in accordance with law. On the other hand accused has pleaded guilty for the charge leveled against him and prayed for the lenient view.
11. Even otherwise the accused has moved application to plead his guilt which is Ex. D1 and his statement has also been Page No. 3 recorded to this effect. Accused was explained about the accusation despite that he repeatedly pleaded guilty. As such I am of the view that the accused has pleaded guilty voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion and he can be convicted. To this effect I rely upon judgment passed in case titled as as "Sa lim Mohamed Babul Miniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra" 2001 CRL. L. J. 58, (BOMBAY HIGH COURT) DR. (Mrs.) Pratibha Upasani, J. Cr. Revn. Appl. NO. 243 of 1994 wherein it was held that : " Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (29 of 1966), Ss. 3(a), 8(1) - Unlawful possession of railway property - Accused voluntarily confessed that he had purchased stolen property of railway - Confessional statement recorded by RPF officer making enquiry under S. 8(1) - Is admissible in evidence as he is not a police officer under S. 162 CR. P.C. Conviction based on said confessional statement - Not illegal."
12. I also rely upon the observation taken in case titled as "Balk ishan A. Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra" and "State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Hari & Ors." 1980 CRL. L. J. 1424 (SUPREME COURT) wherein it was observed that : Page No. 4 " U/s. 25 - Police Officer - Officer of R.P.F. making inquiry in respect of offence under S. 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), is not Police Officer .
The primary test for determining whether an officer is a Police Officer is : Whether the officer concerned under the Special Act, has been invested with all the powers exercisable by an officerincharge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code qua investigation of offences under that Act, including the power to initiate prosecution by submitting a report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. of 1898. In order to bring him within the purview of the 'police officer' for the purpose of Section 25, Evidence Act, it is not enough to show that the exercises some or even many of the powers of a police officer conducting an investigation under the Code. Constitution of India, Art. 20 (3) "Pers on accused of an offence" Person arrested under S. 6 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 - Incriminating statements made by him during enquiry under S. 8 - Prosecution under S. 20 (3) not available" .
Page No. 5
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances accused Mohd. Shakil, S/o. Mohd. Sahid is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/s 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN S.K.GAUTAM COURT ON 07.06.2007. MM:DELHI.
Page No. 6
IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.GAUTAM :MM :DELHI State Vs. Mohd. Shakil CC No. 15/99 PS : RPF/SSB U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: APP for RPF.
Accused/Convict on bail.
Heard on the point of sentence. APP for the RPF submitted that the prosecution has examined witnesses and proved its case hence accused may be convicted in accordance with law. On the other accused/convict submitted that he belongs to a poor family. He further submitted that he has already undergone imprisonment of about 5 days in Judicial Custody in this case hence he may be released on undergone imprisonment.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the accused/convict, accused/convict Mohd. Shakil, S/o. Mohd. Sahid is sentenced to imprisonment which is already undergone by him and fine of Rs. 5,000/ I.D. 30 days SI in this case U/s. 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966. Benefit U/s. 428 Cr. P.C. is awarded to the accused.
Case property be disposed of in accordance with law. File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of order be given to the accused/convict, free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN S.K.GAUTAM COURT ON 07.06.2007. MM:DELHI. Page No. 7 State Vs. Mohd. Shakil CC No. 15/99 PS : RPF/SSB U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 07.06.2007 Present: APP for RPF. Accused on bail.
Vide separate Judgment and order of today accused Mohd. Shakil, S/o. Mohd. Sahid is convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable U/s 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966.
Case property be disposed of in accordance with law. File be consigned to R.R. (S.K. Gautam) MM/Delhi 07.06.2007 Page No. 8