Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay Yadav on 18 December, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.GAUTAM :MM :DELHI
State Vs. Sanjay Yadav
CC No. 16/07
PS : RPF/SSB
U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966
JUDGMENT
a) The Sl. No. of the case : 203/01
b) Date of Institution : 07.09.2007
c) Name of the complainant : SI/RPF Kashi Ram
d) The name & add. of accused : Sanjay Yadav,
S/o. Ram Nandan,
R/o. Katchi Jhuggi,
Cement Siding, Shakurbasti,
Delhi
Permanent Address
Village Kankola,
PS Sudhir Nagar,
Dist. Begusarai, Bihar
e) Date of commission of
offence : 29.07.2007
f) Offence complained of : U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966
g) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Date on which judgment
reserved : 18.12.2007
i) Final Order : Convicted
j) Date of Judgment : 18.12.2007
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISIONS :
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on 29.07.2007 at about 20.30 hours at OHE Pole No. 9/20, SSB within the jurisdiction of RPF Post SSB accused was apprehended by RPF staff and found in possession of Wheel Excel Page No. 1 Box Plate worth of Rs. 700/ belonging to Railway department reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained and thereby accused committed an offence 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 and other documents were supplied to him.
3. Prosecution in all to prove its case cited as many as 5 witnesses and examined 2 witnesses. Before proceeding to any conclusion let we analyse the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
4. In precharge evidence prosecution examined PW1 Shri Harjot Singh who testified that on 29.07.2007 one face plate of excel box was found short from a coach a theft memo Ex. PW1/A was issued by him and he examined the case property of this case on 01.08.2007 at RPF/SSB i.e. one face plate of excel box and opined that same is railway property serviceable not available in market and issued a report Ex. PW1/B. He possess 30 years of experience in railway department and also undergo railway trained and also hold diploma in Mechanical Engineering. He identified the case property i.e. one face plate as Ex. P1.
5. PW2 SI Kashi Ram testified that on 29.07.2007 he alognwith Ct. Samarpal singh and Ct. Jagdish Kumar while on Page No. 2 patrolling in the area of SSB apprehended accused Sanjay Yadav while carrying of excel box face plate unlawfully at about 20.00 hours near pole NO. 9/20 accused was arrested and property was seized Ex. PW2/A and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW2/B and disclosure Ex.PW2/C was recorded. Accused also point out the place of theft vide memo Ex. PW2/D and made a confession Ex. PW2/E free and voluntarily. On the same day a case was registered at RPF post SSB in the course of enquiry prepared site plan Ex. PW2/F. He got the property verified vide memo Ex. PW1/B and after completion of enquiry submitted a complaint before the court. He identified the case property in the court.
6. Thereafter precharge 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 28.09.2007 charge for offence punishable U/s. 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966 was framed out against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Accordingly in aftercharge evidence PW1 and PW2 came forward for their cross examination but accused did not cross examine them despite opportunity granted.
8. During the course of trial accused pleaded guilty for the crime in question and moved application to this effect. Accordingly Page No. 3 aftercharge evidence was dispensed with. On 18.12.2007 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.
9. 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. Even otherwise the accused has moved application to plead his guilt which is Ex. D1 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.
10. It is further to be noted that the confessional statement Ex. PW2/E recorded by the RPF official who are not the police official is also an independent piece of evidence against accused. I rely upon the observations held in case titled 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. Page No. 4 243 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."
11. I also rely upon the observation taken in case titled as " Balkishan A. Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra" and "S tate 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 officerincharge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code qua investigation of offences under that Page No. 5 Act, including the power to initiate prosecution by submitting a report (chargesheet) under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. of 1898. In order to bring him within the purview of the 'p olice 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 -
Incriminating statements made by him during enquiry under S. 8 - Prosecution under S. 20 (3) not available" .
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances accused Sanjay Yadav, S/o. Ram Nandan is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/s 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN S.K.GAUTAM COURT ON 18.12.2007. MM:DELHI.
Page No. 6
IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.GAUTAM :MM :DELHI State Vs. Sanjay Yadav CC No. 16/07 PS : RPF/SSB U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: APP for RPF.
Accused/Convict 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 4 months and 17 days in judicial custody during the course of trial hence he may be released on undergone imprisonment.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the accused/convict, accused/convict Sanjay Yadav, S/o. Ram Nandan is sentenced to imprisonment which is already undergone by him and fine of Rs. 1,000/ I.D. 3 days S.I. in this case U/s. 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966.
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 18.12.2007. MM:DELHI. Page No. 7 State Vs. Sanjay Yadav CC No. 16/07 PS : RPF/SSB U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 18.12.2007 Present: APP for RPF. Accused produced from J/C.
PW1 Shri Harjot Singh and PW2 SI Kanshi Ram in person.
PW1 Shri Harjot Singh and PW2 SI Kanshi Ram are examined in aftercharge evidence and discharged accordingly.
At this stage accused is requesting to dispense with further PE on the ground that he 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 Sanjay Yadav, S/o. Ram Nandan 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 18.12.2007 Page No. 8