Delhi District Court
State vs . Bahjat Ali @ Munna on 6 October, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.GAUTAM :MM :DELHI
State Vs. Bahjat Ali @ Munna
CC No. 12/7
PS : RPF/SSB
U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966
JUDGMENT
a) The Sl. No. of the case : 168/01
b) Date of Institution : 31.07.2007
c) Name of the complainant : SI/RPF Ram Kishan
d) The name & add. of accused : Bahjat Ali @ Munna,
S/o. Shabbir Ali Aham,
R/o. A K Hatha, PS Khutana,
Dist. Madhubani, Bihar.
e) Date of commission of
offence : 19.06.2007
f) Offence complained of : U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966
g) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Date on which judgment
reserved : 06.10.2007
i) Final Order : Convicted
j) Date of Judgment : 06.10.2007
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISIONS :
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on 19.06.2007 at about 9.20 hours in the area of SSB Station within the jurisdiction of RPF Post SSB accused was apprehended by RPF staff and found in possession of one washbasin as per seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A worth of Rs. 1000/- belonging to Railway department reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained and thereby accused committed an offence Page No. 1 punishable U/s. 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966.
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 10 witnesses and examined 5 witnesses. Before proceeding to any conclusion let we analyse the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
4. In pre-charge evidence prosecution examined PW-1 HS Bawa, SE as an expert witness. He testified examination of case property conducted by him on 13.07.2007 at RPF Post SSB of case property i.e. one washbasin and his report Ex. PW-1/A in which he opined that the case property is a railway property.
5. PW-2 SI D.K. Sharma is the Enquiry Officer of this case. He testified apprehension of accused alongwith unlawful possession of the case property and thereafter enquiry conducted by him. He also proved the documents prepared by him during the course of enquiry in accordance with law.
6. Thereafter pre-charge evidence was closed and from perusal of material produced on record and testimony of prosecution witnesses a prima facie case U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act was made out against the accused. Accordingly on 24.08.2007 charge for offence punishable U/s. 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966 was framed out against the Page No. 2 accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Accordingly in after-charge evidence PW-1 and 2 came forward for their cross examination but accused did not cross examine them.
8. Thereafter prosecution examined PW-3 SI Ram Kishan who is the second Enquiry Officer of this case and he also testified the enquiry conducted and documents prepared by him during enquiry.
9. PW-4 ASI Vishweshwar Misra and PW-5 Ct. Dineshwar Lal Srivastava are the witnesses of the spot. They were present at the time of occurrence and during enquiry conducted by EO and they testified the same in their depositions before the Court.
10. 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 after-charge evidence was dispensed with. On 06.01.2007 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.
11. 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 Page No. 3 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.
12. Even otherwise the accused has moved application to plead his guilt which is Ex. D-1 and his statement has also been 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 "Salim 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."Page No. 4
13. I also rely upon the observation taken in case titled as "Balkishan 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 :-
"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 officer-in-charge 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) - "Person accused of an offence" - Person arrested under S. 6 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 -
Page No. 5 Incriminating statements made by him during enquiry under S. 8 - Prosecution under S. 20 (3) not available".
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances accused Bahjat Ali @ Munna, S/o. Shabbir Ali Aham is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/s 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN S.K.GAUTAM COURT ON 06.10.2007. MM:DELHI.
Page No. 6
IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.GAUTAM :MM :DELHI State Vs. Bahjat Ali @ Munna CC No. 12/7 PS : RPF/SSB U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: APP for RPF.
Accused/Convict in J/C. 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 is in Judicial Custody in this case since 19.06.2007 as such already undergone some imprisonment hence he may be released on undergone imprisonment.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the accused/convict, accused/convict Bahjat Ali @ Munna, S/o. Shabbir Ali Aham is sentenced to imprisonment which is already undergone by him and fine of Rs. 1,000/- I.D. 7 days S.I. in this case U/s. 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966. Benefit U/s. 428 Cr. P.C. is also 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 06.10.2007. MM:DELHI. Page No. 7 State Vs. Bahjat Ali @ Munna CC No. 12/7 PS : RPF/SSB U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 06.10.2007 Present: APP for RPF. Accused in J/C.
PW ASI Visheswar Mishra and Ct. Dineshwar Lal Srivastava in person.
PW-4 ASI Visheswar Mishra and PW-5 Ct.
Dineshwar Lal Srivastava are examined and discharged accordingly.
At this stage accused is pleading guilty for the charge leveled against him and has also moved an application to this effect. Accused has been duly explained about the accusation despite that he is repeatedly pleading guilty, as such I am of the opinion that accused is pleading guilty voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. Accordingly further PE is dispensed with. Let statement of accused recorded.
Statement of accused U/s. 281 Cr. P.C. is recorded today separately in which accused admitted all allegations put against him by the prosecution.
Vide separate Judgment and order of today accused Bahjat Ali @ Munna, S/o. Shabbir Ali Aham 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 06.10.2007 Page No. 8