9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Failure to frame a charge under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 against certain accused.
The judgment of the Supreme Court pertains to an appeal challenging the decision of the Bombay High Court regarding the framing of charges under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The State of Maharashtra appealed against the High Court's ruling that it was not necessary to frame a charge under section 3 of the Act against certain accused individuals. The case involved the theft of railway property, specifically seven tyres stolen from a railway station and subsequently sold to other accused. The prosecution alleged that the accused were in unlawful possession of the stolen railway property. The trial court and the Additional Sessions Judge of Jalgaon did not frame a charge under section 3 of the Act against all the accused, leading to the State's appeal. The key legal provision under consideration was section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, which penalizes individuals found in possession of railway property reasonably suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained. The section requires three essential elements to be met: the property must be railway property, reasonably suspected of being stolen, and the accused must be found or proved to have been in possession of the property. The court confirmed that the stolen property in question was railway property and reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained. The crucial issue was whether the accused were found or proved to have been in possession of the railway property, as required by section 3. The court analyzed the allegations against each accused individual. Accused 1, 2, 5, and an absconding accused were implicated in the theft of the tyres from the railway station. The court emphasized that the offense of theft necessitates a transfer of possession, even if temporary, from the original owner to the accused. Thus, the allegation that these accused individuals had removed the tyres implied they had been in possession of the stolen property. The court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation that possession at the time of seizure was necessary, stating that past possession was sufficient to trigger the application of section 3 of the Act. The court criticized the High Court's reasoning that section 3 was akin to a provision in the Bombay Police Act regarding unexplained possession, emphasizing that section 3 penalizes individuals proven to have been in possession of stolen railway property. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the trial court to frame a charge under section 3 of the Act against the accused involved in the theft, in addition to the charges under the Indian Penal Code. The court stressed the need for expedited trial proceedings due to the case's prolonged delay.
|
