Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1975 DIGILAW 8 (PAT)

Ramshrishta Singh v. State Of Bihar

1975-01-16

NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, S.ALI AHMAD

body1975
Judgment S.ALI AHMAD, J. 1. The petitioner in this case was convicted by the Munsif-Magistrate u/s. 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. His appeal to the Sessions Court was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the order of conviction and sentence passed against him was affirmed. Hence, this application in revision. 2. The petitioner, who was an employee of the South Eastern Railway, was reported to have in his possession 90 (ninety) pieces of traction carbon brushes. On the 8th March, 1969, a raid was conducted by P.W. 3, along with P.Ws. 5 and 6, and the 90 pieces of traction carbon brushes were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. A seizure list was, accordingly, prepared. P.Ws. 4 and 8 are witnesses to that seizure list. 3. The finding of the Court of appeal below is that these 90 pieces of traction carbon brushes belonged to the South Eastern Railway. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this finding is not sufficient to sustain the order of conviction under Sec.3(a) of the Act. In that connection he has referred to the case of Kashmirilal V/s. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 1868 : (1970 Cri LJ 1647) wherein it was held that it must be proved that the articles belonged to the railway and also that the articles were being used or intended to be used for construction, operation or maintenance of the Railway. It is to be noticed that their Lordships of the Supreme Court were considering the definition of railway stores as defined in the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955 (Act 51 of 1955). That Act has since been repealed and the petitioner in the instant case has been convicted under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 . The definition of railway stores in the 1955 Act was as follows :- "2. In this Act, railway stores means any articles. (a) which is the property of any railway administration; and (b) which is used or intended to be used in construction, operation or maintenance of a railway." In the 1966 Act, railway stores as such has not been defined, but railway property has been defined in Sec.2(d) in these words :- "2. In this Act, railway stores means any articles. (a) which is the property of any railway administration; and (b) which is used or intended to be used in construction, operation or maintenance of a railway." In the 1966 Act, railway stores as such has not been defined, but railway property has been defined in Sec.2(d) in these words :- "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires - **** (d) railway property includes any goods, money or valuable security or animal, belonging to, or in the charge or possession of, a railway administration". The definition of railway property in this Act leaves no manner of doubt that now the scope has been enlarged and it covers all properties belonging to the railway. It is no more necessary for the prosecution to prove that the property is used or was intended to be used for construction, operation or maintenance of a railway. In that view of the matter, I do not think that the Supreme Court case is applicable to the facts of the case in hand. 5. The next grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the search was not in accordance with Sec.11 of the Act. Sec.11 of the Act takes us back to the provisions relating to search in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Sec.11 of the Act reads thus :- "11. All searches and artistes made under this Act shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, relating respectively to searches and artistes made under that Code." Learned Counsel, however, could not point out any violation of the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding search and seizure. The mere fact that the witnesses to the seizure were not local persons will not make the search and seizure illegal. I do not find any substance in this argument of the learned Counsel also. 6 Lastly, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the sentence is much severe and it should be reduced. I do not find any mitigating circumstance in favour of the petitioner. Theft of railway properties has become much too common. In that view of the matter, I do not feel that the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment can be said to be severe. 7. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed. I do not find any mitigating circumstance in favour of the petitioner. Theft of railway properties has become much too common. In that view of the matter, I do not feel that the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment can be said to be severe. 7. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed. NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, J. 8 I agree.