Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonu And Ramu on 23 February, 2021
CNR No. DL CT 020150052020
IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DL CT020150052020
CIS No. 6334/20
State Vs. Sonu and Ramu
CC No. 07/20
PS. RPF/DSJ
U/s. Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 16.09.2020
2) The name of the complainant : SI Pankaj Singh
3) The name & parentage of accused : 1) Sonu S/o Kallu
2) Ramu S/o Khageshwar
4) Offence complained of : Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Convicted
7) The date of such order : 23.02.2021 Date of Institution : 05.11.2020 Judgment reserved on : 23.02.2021 Judgment announced on : 23.02.2021 State Vs. Sonu and Ramu; CIS No. 6334/20; CC NO.07/20; PS. RPF/DSJ; U/s. Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966, 1/7 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2021.02.23 16:34:06 +0530 CNR No. DL CT 020150052020 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1) The case of the railways is that on 16.09.2020 at 14:15 Hours within the area of RPF/DSJ near kilometer 7/4 in between DSJ and SOJ railway station accused persons were apprehended by RPF Staff and they were found in the possession of 12 pendrols clips which was a railway property, suspected of having been stolen or obtained unlawfully.
2) After inquiry, complaint was filed by the inquiry officer. Vide order dated 01.12.2020 Ld Predecessor of this court dispensed with the recording of presummoning evidence as the complaint was made by the public servant in discharge of his official duties. Accused persons were produced before the court and precharge evidence was recorded on 18.02.2021. On that day precharge evidence was closed and the arguments on the point of charge were heard. Charge for the offence U/s 3 RP (UP) Act was framed upon accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claim trial.
Both accused persons refused to further crossexamine the witnesses of the railways who deposed during precharge evidence. After considering the submissions of the accused persons no further post charge evidence was lead and the matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused persons. Thereafter statements of accused persons were recorded in which accused persons denied all the allegations and opted not to lead defence evidence. Final arguments were advanced by Ld PP for RPF and Ld Defence Counsel. Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2021.02.23 16:34:16 +0530 State Vs. Sonu and Ramu; CIS No. 6334/20; CC NO.07/20; PS. RPF/DSJ; U/s. Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966, 2/7 CNR No. DL CT 020150052020
3) The evidence lead during the stage of precharge evidence is to considered. Three witnesses were examined by the Railways and all were crossexamined by the Ld Defence Counsel. It is necessary to go through the testimony of these three witnesses to appreciate as to whether the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden of proof or not.
4) PW1 Ct Raj Pal deposed that on 16.09.2020 he was on patrolling duty vide DD Ex.PW1/A and there he observed accused persons (correctly identified) in suspicious condition carrying some heavy material in white plastic bags near kilometer 7/4 in between DSJ and SOJ. Accused persons were apprehended and were found in the possession of 12 pendrol clips and they were not able to produce any authority for keeping or carrying the railway property. Accused persons were arrested and case was registered.
He deposed that inquiry officer SI Pankaj prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/D and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/E. He identified the case property when brought in the case. The relevant exhibits qua the case property are Ex.P1 to Ex.P16.
5) PW2 SI Pankaj deposed that on 16.09.2020 he received the inquiry of the present case and during the inquiry accused persons made their disclosure statement Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B respectively and pointed out the place of theft i.e the railway line no.5 in between DSJ and SOJ. The necessary formalities were completed.
6) PW3 HC Raja Ram deposed that on 16.09.2020 he deposited the case property in the malkhana vide DD no.21 Ex.PW1/C and on State Vs. Sonu and Ramu; CIS No. 6334/20; CC NO.07/20; PS. RPF/DSJ; U/s. Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966, 3/7 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2021.02.23 16:34:25 +0530 CNR No. DL CT 020150052020 28.09.2020 SI Pankaj redeposited the case property after verification. The copy of the malkhana register proved as Ex.PW3/A.
7) Before appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses the necessary ingredients of the offence U/s 3 RP UP Act as explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as State of Maharashtra vs Vishwanath Tukaram (1979) (4) SCC 23 are required to be mentioned.
These ingredients are as follows:
a) The property in question should be a railway property;
b) It should be reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained; and
c) It should be found or proved that accused was or had been in possession of that property.
8) The first poser is whether the property recovered from the possession of accused persons was a railway property or not. On this aspect the testimony of PW1 and PW2 is relevant. PW1 categorically deposed that the accused persons were found in the possession of pendrol clips. PW2 deposed that accused persons pointed out the track from where pendrol clips were removed. In the testimony of PW2 the verification report of the property in question that it is a railway property is proved as Ex.PW2/F. The testimony of PW1 and PW2 was not challenged in the cross examination on this aspect. The report of independent examiner available on record vide Ex.PW2/F is a reliable document. All these facts proved that the pendrol clips was railway property.
State Vs. Sonu and Ramu; CIS No. 6334/20; CC NO.07/20; PS. RPF/DSJ; U/s. Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966, 4/7 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2021.02.23 16:34:35 +0530 CNR No. DL CT 020150052020
9) On the poser of the possession of the accused persons as to the railway property and the poser as to the theft or unlawfully having the possession of railway property again the testimony of PW1 and PW2 is relevant. PW1 specifically deposed that on 16.09.2020 he along with IPF Nitin Mehra was on patrolling duty and there he apprehended accused persons with 12 pendrol clips. These pendrol clips have been proved to be the railway property in view of the abovediscussion. The confessional statement made by the accused persons to the inquiry officer is also relevant and admissible on the strength of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Balkishan A.Devi Dayal & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra 1981 AIR(SC) 379 wherein it was held that character of inquiry under Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act is different from the investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore any confession before an officer of Railway Police Force in the course of his inquiry is not to be excluded from evidence U/s 25 of Indian Evidence Act.
It was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the judgment titled as Saleem Mohd Babul Meniar Vs State of Maharashtra 2001 Criminal Law Journal 58 that the conviction can be based for the offence U/s 3 RP (UP) Act on the basis of the confessional statement of the accused. The confessional statement of the accused persons have been proved on record by the inquiry officer PW2 SI Pankaj. These confessional statement are categorical as to the possession of accused persons of the railway property.
State Vs. Sonu and Ramu; CIS No. 6334/20; CC NO.07/20; PS. RPF/DSJ; U/s. Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966, 5/7 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2021.02.23 16:34:43 +0530 CNR No. DL CT 020150052020
10) In the crossexamination of PW1 and PW2 only bald suggestions were made by the Ld Defence Counsel that the case property was not recovered from the possession of accused persons. This suggestion in itself is not sufficient to discard the testimony of railway police official made on oath. There is nothing on record as to any circumstance which could be the reason for the railway police officer to falsely implicate the accused persons. By virtue of testimony of railway police officers and documents proved on record the possession of accused persons of the pendrol clips, which was a railway property, has been proved on record.
11) No explanation given by the accused persons as to their possession of railway property. In the judgment titled as The Public Prosecutor Vs Shariq Galib and others 1975 Criminal Law Journal 952 Hon'ble High Court of Andhara Pardesh observed that once it is established that the property recovered is a railway property and is reasonably suspected to having been stolen, the burden shift upon the accused to show how he came into the lawful possession of the same. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the judgment titled as Kallu Ram Vs State of UP 1975 Criminal Law Journal 160 observed where a person was found to be in possession of railway property, it was only that person who could explain how it came into the possession.
12) In the case in hand there is no explanation whatsoever by the accused persons as to their possession of railway property. The pendrol clips used in the railway tracks are not something which could be used somewhere State Vs. Sonu and Ramu; CIS No. 6334/20; CC NO.07/20; PS. RPF/DSJ; U/s. Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966, 6/7 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2021.02.23
16:34:52
+0530
CNR No. DL CT 020150052020
else or which could be procured easily from the market. The accused persons being found in the possession of pendrol clips and have not furnished any explanation as to the possession clearly reveals that the pendrol clips were either obtained by theft or obtained unlawfully.
13) Accordingly, all the ingredients of offence U/s Section 3 of the Railway Property (unlawful Possession) Act 1966 Act stands satisfied.
Accused persons are hereby convicted for the offence U/s Section 3 of the Railway Property (unlawful Possession) Act 1966 Act. Copy of the judgment be supplied free of cost.
Be heard on point of sentence.
Digitally
signed by
KAPIL
KAPIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2021.02.23
16:35:00
+0530
Announced in the open court (KAPIL KUMAR)
on 23.02.2021 Metropolitan Magistrate07
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi* State Vs. Sonu and Ramu; CIS No. 6334/20; CC NO.07/20; PS. RPF/DSJ; U/s. Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966, 7/7