Delhi District Court
Rpf vs Randhir Singh on 30 October, 2025
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV GARG
GARG Date:
2025.10.30
17:06:43
+0530
THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV GARG, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-11,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Ct. Case No.511686/2016
RPF Vs. Randhir Singh
CC No. 13/2015
PS. RPF/NDLS
U/s. Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966.
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 24.04.2015
2) The name of the complainant : SI P.K.G.A Naidu
3) The name & parentage of accused : Randhir Singh S/o Chander Singh, R/o Village Rudi, PS and District Palwal, Haryana.
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 : Acquittal Date of institution of Case : 18.08.2015 Judgment reserved on : 19.08.2025 Judgment pronounced on : 30.10.2025 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the RPF/Complainant is that on 24.04.2015, the accused Randhir Singh was found in the unlawful possession of 01 booked consignment Marka No. 2000448943 E-7/1, NDLS to MAS without lawful authority and case was registered at RPF/NDLS on the same day for the offence u/s 3 RP (UP) Act, 1966.
2. During enquiry, the seizure memo, disclosure and confessional statement of the 1/14 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.30 17:06:49 +0530 accused was recorded. Site plan and pointing out memo were prepared at the instance of the accused and the case property was also gotten verified from the experts. Upon completion of enquiry, the present complaint was instituted against the accused.
3. Since the present case was instituted by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, the pre-summoning evidence was dispensed with and pre-charge evidence was recorded.
4. During the pre-charge evidence, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. On the basis of material on record and the testimony of the said 14 witnesses, charge was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. After the examination of total 14 witnesses, statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated, and that the enquiry was done in a biased manner, and the recovery from him was planted. Accused has pleaded innocence, however, he has not led any defence evidence.
6. During the final arguments, the learned PP for RPF reiterated the entire evidence and pleaded that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act.
7. Per Contra, Ld. LAC for the accused has argued that the recovery from the accused was a planted recovery and no actual recovery was made. He has further argued that no public witness has been examined and thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
8. PW-1 SI Bhagwan Sharma, has deposed that on 24.04.2015, he was posted as SI, RPF/NDLS. He further deposed that on that day, he alongwith ASI Dharamvir Singh and ASI Arvind Kumar had left the RP Post vide DD entry no.
2/14
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV GARG
GARG Date:
2025.10.30
17:06:55
+0530
10 at about 5.45 for patrolling in the area of NDLS railway station. Copy of DD entry is Ex. PW-1/A. He further deposed that during patrolling, they apprehended accused Randhir Singh alongwith one plastic bag while carrying on his right shoulder near gate of base kitchen at about 6:15 hrs. He further deposed that during checking of bag, railway marka no. 22- 4NDLS2000448943P7MAS was found on the bag which was containing machinery parts and same was booked in the railway for which accused failed to produce any authority for keeping and carrying the railway property with him and accordingly, property was seized, accused was arrested and personally searched at about 6:35 hrs. vide memo Ex. PW-1/B. He further deposed that disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW-1/C was recorded and he also pointed out the place of theft vide pointing out memo Ex. PW-1/D. He further deposed that after spot proceeding, accused was taken to RPF post, NDLS alongwith recovered case property where the present case was registered by him in the rojnamcha Ex. PW-1/E. hu further proved the arrest memo Ex. PW-1/F and arrest report Ex. PW-1/G of the accused. He further deposed that further enquiry of this case was handed over to SI P.K.G.A. Naidu. He also proved the Site plan Ex. PW-1/I was prepared by EO at his instance. He further identified the case property as well as the accused.
9. PW-2 HC Ramesh Chand has deposed that on 24.04.2015, he was posted at RPF NDLS and was on duty from 20.00 to 08.00 hours as Koth. He further deposed that during his duty, he handed over the case property of present case to HC Balwan who was on duty alongwith ASI Satish and Ranbir Singh at RPF NDLS and the same was received by him during his duty in sealed condition from SI Shri Bhagwan Singh. He further deposed that HC Balwan Singh deposited the same in malkhana vide DD No. 28 at 09.35 hours Ex.PW-2/A. 3/14 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.30 17:07:00 +0530
10. PW-3 Gyan Chand Meena has deposed that on 24.04.2015, he was on duty at Junction Clerk at NDLS from 00:00 Hours to 08:00 AM and on checking, he found one package of consignment bearing RR No. 8943 P-7 NDLS to MAS was short, and he accordingly issued a theft memo Ex.PW-3/A to the NDLS/RPF.
11. PW-4 HC Balwan Singh has deposed that on 23/24.04.2015, he was posted as a Constable at RPF/NDLS and was on duty from 20:00 to 08:00 hrs. as Rojnamcha writer and during his duty, he registered a case in rojnamcha against the accused Randhir Singh CC No. 13/15 u/s RP(UP) Act at the instance of SI Shri Bhagwan. He further identified the accused correctly in the Court.
12. PW-5 ASI Satish Kumar has deposed that on 24.04.2015, he was on duty as MHCM at RPF NDLS and he deposited the case property of this case in malkhana vide DD No. 28 Ex. PW-2/A alongwith HC Balwan Singh and on 31.05.2015, he took out the case property for verification and redeposited the same after verification vide DD Entry No. 37 and 38 Ex. PW-5/A and PW-5/B, respectively. He further proved the malkhana register Ex. PW-5/C.
13. PW-6 Inspector Satnarain Singh has deposed that on 24.04.2015, he was working in investigation branch RPF NDLS as SI and the present case was entered in crime register Ex.PW-6/A against accused Randhir at the instance of SI Sh. Bhagwan.
14. PW-7 Mr. Sunil Sharma has deposed that on 22.04.2015, he booked the consignment under RR no. 2000448343 from New Delhi to Madras containing iron parts, but one package was not delivered at destination. He further deposed that on 31.05.2015, he was called by EO at RPF Post NDLS and a package was shown to him, which was same as booked by him with Railways and containing same Railway Marka. He further deposed that after examining 4/14 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.30 17:07:05 +0530 the said package, he issued report Ex.PW-7/A. He further deposed that case property is on superdari and sample property is exhibited as Ex.P-1.
15. PW-8 ASI Arvind Kumar has deposed that on 24.04.2015, he was posted at RPF/NDLS and he along with SI Shri Bhagwan, ASI Dharambir were on patrolling in the area of NDLS vide DD Ex.PW-1/A and they had apprehended accused Randhir with a white plastic bag near base kitchen gate. He further deposed that on checking the bag, it was found to be containing a package book with railways under RR-2000448943 P7 booked from: NDLS for MAS containing machinery parts. He further deposed that accused failed to produce any authority for keeping railway property with him, he was arrested and property was seized vide memo Ex. PW-1/B at about 06:30 hours. He further deposed that accused also made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-1/C and point out the place of theft vide memo Ex. PW-1/D. He further deposed that they all arrived at RPF Post where a case was registered at about 08.35 hours vide DD Ex. PW-1/E and all documents were prepared by SI Shri Bhagwan in his presence. During cross examination he deposed that the spot where the accused was arrested was at a distance of about 300 mtrs from the RPF Post and that three documents were prepared at the spot. He further deposed that the accused was not familiar to him before the incident.
16. PW-9 Sh. Rameshwar Bairwa has deposed that on 22.04.2015 he was posted as Parcel Supervisor at NLDS and nominated as Booking and Weighment Clerk from 00:00 to 08:00 hours at parcel office. He further deposed that during his duty hours, 01 party SFF-210 Sadar Bazar Delhi approached him along with consignment and the forwarding note and after making the weight of the parcel he made the entry at point A of forwarding Note Ex. PW-9/A. He further deposed that he weighed the 07 produced packets and the total weight was 232 Kg and freight was charged as Rs 1918/- for booking the parcels from NDLS to 5/14 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.30 17:07:10 +0530 MAS. He further deposed that railway receipt 2000448943 Ex. PW-9/B were issued. He further deposed that the parcels were sent for marka and loading. During cross examination he deposed that he denied the suggestion the he did not weigh the parcels.
17. PW-10 Sh. Brahm Prakash has deposed that on 22.04.2015, he was posted as a Marka Man at NDLS and was on duty from 00:00 hrs to 08:00 hrs and his duty was to ensure Marka on the booked consignment parcel package. He further deposed that he put Marka as per Railway Receipt on seven parcels of RR N. 2000448943 P-7 EX NDLS to MAS. During cross examination he deposed that he denied the suggestion that he put wrong marka on the parcels.
18. PW-11 Sh. Bhagat Singh has deposed that on 24.04.2015, he was posted as a Senior Parcel Clerk, NDLS and his duty was to loading and unloading of the booked consignment parcel package in train. He further deposed that he was on duty from 16:00 hrs to 24:00 hrs and that he loaded six parcels as per Railway Receipt out of seven parcels of RR N. 2000448943 P-7 EX NDLS to MAS in train no. 12616, GT Express and after loading SLR of the said train was sealed and he further deposed that the train departed towards destination. He further proved the Loading summary is Ex. PW-11/A. During cross examination he deposed that he denied the suggestion that he prepared a false loading summary.
19. PW-12 Sh. A. Matthews has deposed that on 26.04.2015 he was working as a senior parcel clerk at MAS (Chennai Central Railway Station) and on that day he attended RSLR- SR 09711/C of Train No. 12616 after arrival at MAS and unloaded the parcels from the RSLR. 6 out of 7 parcels were unloaded of RR No. 2000448943 ex NDLS - MAS and only 6 parcels of above said RR were received as unloaded. He further deposed that the Unloaded summary Ex. PW- 12/A having relevant entry at Point-A was prepared by him which was verified 6/14 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.30 17:07:15 +0530 on duty commercial supervisor. He further deposed that 6 parcels out of 7 as received were delivered to the concerned party vide deliver report Ex.PW-12/B. he further proved the Gate pass is Ex.PW-12/C. A letter Mark-A was received in their office from RP/NDLS for recording of his statement. During cross examination he deposed that he denied the suggestion that he prepared a false unloading summary.
20. PW-13 ASI Dharmendra Kumar has deposed that on 24.04.2015, he was posted as constable in 3rd Bn. RPSF, C-Coy. Lucknow and their battalion was deputed as NDLS. He further deposed that on that day he was deputed as a pahra santri at RPF Post NDLS and one accused namely Rahdhir Singh was in the lock-up as he was his pahra santri, who was taken out from lock up at the instance of SI P.K.G.A. Naidu. He further deposed that SI enquired from the accused Randhir Singh in his presence and confessional statement Ex. PW-13/A of accused Randhir Singh recorded in his presence in which he confessed the guilt voluntarily that he had stolen one parcel booked consignment from the parcel NDLS. He correctly identified the accused Randhir Singh. During cross examination he deposed that he denied the suggestion that no confessional statement of the accused was recorded.
21. PW-14 IPF P.K.G.A. Naidu has deposed that on 24.04.2015, he was posted as SI at RPF Post NDLS and one accused namely Randhir Singh was arrested by SI Shri Bhagwan Sharma and other RPF officials with unlawful possession of one booked consignment parcel package having railway marka 2000448943 P- 7/1 NDLS to MAS. He further deposed that after spot formalities, the abovesaid case was registered against the accused and further enquiry of this case was handed over to him. He further deposed that during enquiry, he recorded the confessional statement Ex.PW-13/A of accused Randhir Singh in the presence of one independent witness Vijay Kumar and RPF constable 7/14 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.30 17:07:22 +0530 Dharmendra Kumar Singh in which he confessed the guilt voluntarily. He further proved the theft memo Ex.PW-3/A, Site plan Ex.PW-1/I. He further deposed that during enquiry, the recovered case property was got verified as railway property from Sunil Sharma vide verification report Ex.PW-7/A and he also collected C-3 & C-5 record. He further deposed that he collected forwarding note, railway recept, loading summary and unloading particulars, gate pass record, delivery report. He correctly identified the accused. During cross examination he deposed that he denied the suggestion that no confessional statement of accused was recorded in his presence or that he made a false enquiry against the accused.
22. The locus classicus for appreciating the ingredients of the offence u/S 3 of RP (UP) Act is State of Maharashtra vs Vishwanath Tukaram (1979) 4 SCC 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that essential requirements of Section 3 of RP (UP) Act are as follows:
a. The property in question should be railway property; b. It should reasonably be suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained; and c. It should be found or proved that the accused was or had been in possession of that property.
23. In The Public Prosecutor vs Shaik Galib & Ors. 1975 Cri LJ 952, Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the once it is established that the property in question is railway property and it is reasonably suspected to have been stolen, the burden shifts upon the accused to show as to how he came into lawful possession of the same. It was further held that it is not necessary that there should be a report of the theft of the railway property. It is sufficient if the facts and circumstances disclose that the property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen.
8/14
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV GARG
GARG Date:
2025.10.30
17:07:29
+0530
24. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has also laid down the following parameters to deal with cases u/S 3 of the RP (UP) Act:
i. "20. The above provisions abundantly make it clear that the actions taken by the RPF have to be strictly in terms of the procedure outlined under the RPF Rules 1987, and any infraction of the said Rules would invalidate such action. There can be no doubt that as far as the present case is concerned, RPF failed to demonstrate before the learned MM that the various theft memos and seizures memos, copies of which were produced before the Court, actually formed part of the original railway record maintained in terms of the aforementioned Rules. The learned MM cannot be faulted for discarding the above evidence since the original registers were not produced.
ii. 22. The Court accordingly holds that the procedures outlined under the RPF Rules 1987, and, in particular, those regarding entries to be made in the crime registers, both as regards the theft of railway property as well as the apprehension of a suspect and recovery of the stolen railway property from him, are mandatory. iii. 23. Under the RPF Regulations 1966, there was a requirement for the RPF to maintain registers which would show the movement of the Railway staff on patrolling duty. Although the said Regulations stand repealed, it is not known whether under Rule 268 of the RPF Rules 1987, the proforma of the records and registers for maintaining the entries of such movement have been prescribed. In any event, when the question arises whether an RPF officer was on patrolling duty at a particular point in time when the suspect was apprehended, the burden would be on the RPF to prove before the Court by producing such records and registers in original that the movement of the RPF officers involved in the arrest is reflected in the register maintained for that purpose.
iv. 26.In many of these cases, it may not be possible for the RPF to associate public witnesses at the time of apprehension of the accused, given the hour of the day when such arrest takes place. Nevertheless, there must be contemporaneous entries made in the records maintained by the RPF to indicate that an attempt was made to associate public witnesses. In other words, the requirement of associating public witnesses must not be treated as a mere formality. It must not be presumed by the RPF in every case that the requirement can be dispensed with. v. 27.Where there are no public witnesses involved, a trial Court is bound to view with suspicion the confessional statement made by an accused in the presence of the RPF officers. It has been held in 9/14 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.30 17:07:48 +0530 Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 4 SCC 600 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 62 that the statement made to an RPF officer will not be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In Babu Lal v. State [1977 SCC OnLine All 95 : 1977 Cri LJ 2008 (All)] , it was held that the statements recorded by the officers of the RPF during the investigation do not attract the provisions of Section 162 CrPC. In Chinna v. State [1976 SCC OnLine Kar 145 :(1977) 2 Kant LJ 480], it was held that the statements recorded by an officer of the RPF in the course of inquiry can be read in evidence. This makes it all the more necessary for the Court to cautiously evaluate the confessional statement purportedly made by an accused to an officer of the RPF soon after his arrest. The Court will have to be satisfied that the statement was voluntary.
Otherwise, it will be a denial of a just, fair and reasonable procedure and constitute a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution as well. The voluntariness of the statement will have to be tested on a case by case basis and evaluated in light of the attendant circumstances of each case. Where there are no public witnesses associated, or where, as in the present case, all the RPF officers stated to have been present at the time of the arrest do not sign the confessional statement, or where, as in the present case, the entries mandatorily required to be made in the registers maintained under the RPF Rules as regards the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the railway property are not proved by producing the original registers, it would be unsafe for the Court to proceed to convict the Respondent only on the basis of his confessional statement."
Points for consideration
25. The following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the case property i.e. 01 pkg booked consignment is "railway property" in terms of Section 2(d) of the RP (UP) Act?
(ii) Whether the case property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained by the accused person?
(iii) Whether the accused person has been found or proved to be has been in possession of the case property?
26. Before embarking upon the evaluation of the evidence available on record, it would be appropriate to discuss the Order No. 73 SPL/REGN/ 10/14 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.30 17:08:00 +0530 CH.XXV dated 09.07.1975 issued by the Railway Board in order to regu- late the powers of RPF, where under all the procedures to be followed from the moment of arrest of an offender under the RP (UP) Act till the forwarding of the complaint for trial have been laid down.
27. Rule 7 of the aforesaid Order dated 09.07.1975 is as follows:
"7. Action taken on apprehending an accused- When a person is arrested for an offence punishable under the Act by a superior officer/member of the force, he shall prepare a recovery memo, cause this information to be brought to the notice of the officer in charge of the post having jurisdiction and handover the accused along with the property recovered and the relevant memo to the latter."
28. Perusal of the testimony of PW-1 reveals that he had apprehended the accused Randhir Singh and arrest, personal search and Seizure Memo (or recovery memo) Ex. PW-1/B was prepared. He further recorded the disclosure statement Ex. PW-1/C, and the pointing out memo Ex. PW-1/D.
29. This conduct of the said RPF official is in direct violation of Rule 7 of the Railway Board's order dated 09.07.1975. As per law, the apprehending RPF official was required to prepare only a recovery memo and then bring the entire facts and circumstances into the notice of the officer In-charge of the RPF post. Thereafter, the said apprehending RPF officials ought to have handed over the accused, alongwith case property recovered and the recovery memo to the officer In-charge of the concerned RPF post. The officer In-charge concerned should have then directed the inquiry as en- shrined u/s 8 of the Act.
30. In this case, a substantial part of inquiry was conducted by the RPF offi-
cial who apprehended the accused. The inquiry officer's role was negligi-
11/14
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV GARG
GARG Date:
2025.10.30
17:08:06
+0530
ble as he merely recorded the confessional statement of the accused, got the case property verified and then prepared/collected the remaining docu- ments available on record. In these circumstances, chances of prejudice to the accused at the hands of apprehending RPF official could not be ruled out in view of the fact that railway property is lying unclaimed most of the times.
31. The prosecution has also failed to bring on record the entries in the Local-
ized Crime Register or the Unlocalized Crime Register that are required to be maintained under the mandate of rules 222 and 223 of RPF Rules 1987. Although a roznamcha entry was made after the apprehension of the accused and the recovery of railway property, however the same does not appear to be a sufficient compliance of the procedural rules.
32. As per Rule 8 of the Railway Board order dated 09.07.1975, the enquiry against the accused is to be conducted subsequent to the registration of case in the concerned Crime Register and the same cannot be proceeded without any entry in the Localized Crime Register or Unlocalized Crime Register.
33. In the present case, the inquiry was initiated on the basis of roznamcha en-
try after ignoring the mandatory procedural rules. The entry in Localized/Unlocalized Crime Register is the foundation of the inquiry an- ticipated u/S 8 of the Act. However, the prosecution has not proved the entries made in the Localized/Unlocalized Crime Register during trial.
34. Another factor that renders the prosecution story doubtful is that the RPF failed to associate any public person at any stage of inquiry before the fil- ing of present complaint. In fact, the witnesses examined have not de-
12/14
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV GARG
GARG Date:
2025.10.30
17:08:10
+0530
posed even a word about any attempt made by RPF to associate any inde- pendent witness to the recovery proceedings. It is not disputed that the place of alleged arrest of the accused is a place frequented by public per- sons or railway officials. Either the passengers or the vendors, or the coolies are always present in the railway premises. This court can take note of the fact that running of railways is a herculean 24 hours task. It could not be imagined that the presence of even an independent railway official could not be ensured by the RPF. In view of the above, the recov- ery of the case property from the accused cannot be relied upon.
35. Lastly, the only material that is left on record against the accused is his confessional statement. The law as regards a confessional statement to an RPF Officer is clear that such a statement is not hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the court is not precluded this court from assessing the attending circumstances to ensure that the confessional statement was voluntary in nature or not.
36. It is not disputed that the accused was apprehended by the RPF Officials who are presumed to have been uniformed and probably armed at the rele- vant time. This court fails to understand as to how a person allegedly ap- prehended by uniformed and armed RPF Officials (whose uniform is identical to the one worn by State police) could be free from any fear, mental pressure at the time of making the alleged confessional statement or could confide in the RPF officials who were admittedly unknown to him. In the totality of the circumstances, this court could not reasonably believe the absence of any pressure upon the accused at the relevant time.
37. It is pertinent to reproduce Rule 14 of the aforesaid Order dated 13/14 09.07.1975 which is as follows:
14. Record of oral examination and statements of witnesses- (1) If the accused wants to make a confessional statement, the same should be recorded in the presence of two respectable and independent witnesses who should be required to affix their signatures thereon. He should also be produced before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction and the confession shall be recorded by such Magistrate as required by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 164 and
281).
38. This court has already held in the preceding paragraphs that the documen-
tation done at the spot by the RPF officials is not entirely free of doubts. Further the extra judicial confessions like the one in hand are always con- sidered to be a weak piece of evidence. In the absence of any corrobora- tive material, this court is not inclined to act upon the alleged confessional statement of the accused and convict him.
39. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt as not only the recovery of the case property is clouded with doubts, even the procedural requirements have not been complied with by RPF without any justification as discussed in the pre- ceding paragraphs. It is a settled legal preposition that in case of doubt, benefit shall be given to the accused. The accused Randhir Singh S/o Chander Singh is accordingly acquitted of the charge u/S 3 of the RP (UP) Digitally Act. signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.30 17:08:17 +0530 Announced in the open court (VAIBHAV GARG) today. Judicial Magistrate First Class-11/ Central District/Tis Hazari Courts/ Delhi [This judgment contains 14 pages and each page bears the signature of undersigned ] 14/14