Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 923 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. P. Nagarjan

2014-10-21

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2014
JUDGMENT Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. Heard the learned Government Pleader. 2. The State is in appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused in the following circumstances: It was the complainant's case that on 19/1/2009 at about 19.00 hours, the complainant namely the Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, along with his staff namely Head Constable Sri. Sanaulla Khan and Head Constable Sri. G. Jayaraman, had kept watch near Hanuman Temple Square, White Field Main Road, Mahadevapura Post, Bangalore, and they had observed the accused moving in a suspicious manner carrying a handbag which was maroon and black in colour and that on enquiry, he was found carrying certain material and when examined, it was found to contain 13 numbers of Aluminum Fuel Oil Gauge 67, out of which 11 numbers of Aluminum Fuel Oil Gauge 67 were with fuel/water leveling tube with round clips, with railway mark as EFMC containing 4 big holes and 2 small holes and on another side having 6 small holes and 4 big holes and two Aluminum Fuel Oil Gauge 67 were without fuel/water leveling tube and round clip, with railway mark as EFMC containing 4 big holes and 2 small holes and on another side having 6 small holes and 4 big holes and the total value of the property was estimated at Rs. 3,800/- and on further enquiry, the accused did not produce any bill or voucher for his lawful possession of the said railway materials and had disclosed his name and address. He was found to be working under the control of Expresser Section of DLS/KJM in general shift and when co-workers had gone out for a break, without the knowledge of his co-workers and superiors, he used to take advantage and accumulate the said railway materials in his handbag and was proceeding and he was suspected to have stolen the said materials and accordingly he was taken into custody and the material was seized and mahazar was drawn in the presence of witnesses and further enquiry was held. It is further stated that on 13/1/2009, the Engineer, Diesel Loco Shed, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore, issued a missing report stating that 13 numbers of Aluminum Fuel Oil Gauge 67, were missing and on 4/2/2009 issued a letter addressed to Sr. It is further stated that on 13/1/2009, the Engineer, Diesel Loco Shed, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore, issued a missing report stating that 13 numbers of Aluminum Fuel Oil Gauge 67, were missing and on 4/2/2009 issued a letter addressed to Sr. Section Engineer, Diesel Loco Shed, for the Muster Roll Extract of the accused and in this manner further material was gathered to correlate the missing material and the possession of the same in the custody of the accused and on this basis case has been registered for offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and on completion of investigation, the cognizance was taken on the complaint, report and documents having been furnished to the accused, he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution having tendered the evidence through its witnesses PW1 to PW6 and having marked exhibits and other material, it was on closure of the complainant's case, the statement of the accused was recorded and after hearing both the parties, the following points were framed for consideration: "Point No. 1: Whether the complainant/prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 19/01/2008 at about 19.00 hours, near at Hanuman Temple Square, White Field Main Road, Mahadevapura Post, Bangalore, the accused was found in possession of 13 Nos. of Aluminum FUEL OIL GUAGE 67, total valued at Rs. 3,800/-, belonging to the Railways, which are reasonably suspected of having been stolen or un-lawfully obtained from the Railways and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 3(a) of the RP(UP) Act, 1966? Point No. 2: What order?" The said points were held in the negative and the accused was acquitted. It is this which is under challenge in the present appeal. 3. It is seen from the plain reading of the judgment of the court below that the evidence has been analyzed thoroughly in arriving at a finding to the effect that no independent witness was examined to show that the accused had removed the railway material and carried out of the premises of railways and even the mahazar was not drawn outside the premises, as to the seizure was made in a scrap shop, as to the seizure of material objects and that there was doubt as to the manner in which the circumstances under which the railway materials were seized. It is further observed that even the possession of railway materials with the accused and that it is an unlawful possession and that it was stolen from the stores, are not established beyond reasonable doubt. It is not necessary to repeat the reasoning of the court below with reference to the particular testimony of a particular witness. Suffice to state, on a plain reading, this court is fully satisfied to the manner in which the court below has addressed the case and has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Though several grounds are raised in this appeal questioning the findings of the court below, they are mechanically recited and do not indicate any material. Accordingly the appeal is rejected.