9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, hereafter referred to as the Act, against accused 1, 2, S and the absconding ac cused, and directing that a charge under that section may be framed as an alternative charge only against accused 3 and 4. The State of Maharashtra feels aggrieved because of the failure to frame a charge under the aforesaid section 3 against the accused mentioned above. It was alleged that seven tyres and seven tubes were booked from Wadi Bunder goods shed of the Central Railway on March 20, 1971, in wagon No. WR 35775. The seven tyres were stolen by accused 1, 2, 5 and the absconding accused, from the Down Yard of the Bhusawal railway station while in transit, and were kept in the hu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- Whoever is found or is proved to have been in possession of any railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained shall, unless he proves that the railway property came into his possession lawfully, be punishable- (a) for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment A shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees; (c) for the second or a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine and in the absence of spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they had been in possession of that property, in order to attract the application of section 3. . As has been mentioned, the allegation against accused 3 was that he purchased the seven tyres from accused 1 for ₹ 2700/- and removed them in his motor-lorry to Savda. It was further alleged that accused 3 produced four of those tyres from his motor-lorry and the three remaining tyres were found to have been sold to accused 4 and were seized from the possession. In view of this categorical allegation against accused 3 and 4, the High Court rightly directed that they should be charged for the offence under section 3 of the Act also. The appellant State has no grievance in so far as that direction of the High Court is concerned. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, it was thereby alleged that they had been in possession of those tyres for some period of time, even if it is assumed that they parted with them later on and left it for accused 1 to sell them to accused 3. The allegation against accused 1, 2, 5 and the absconding accused was therefore to the effect that they ' had been in possession of the railway property in question, and that was sufficient to attract the application of section 3 of the Act. The High Court erred in taking the view that it was necessary, for the purpose of bringing a case under that section, to prove that the accused were found to be in possession of the railway property at the time of its seizure, and that it would not be attracted in the case of an allegation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
