Sri Gouse Pasha MD

1 C.C. No.572/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

Present: Sri. Gouse Pasha Md II Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Railways) Secunderabad

Dated the 23rd Day of April, 2025

C.C. No.572 of 20 24 BETWEEN: The Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Mahabubnagar. … Complainant AND

Alle Ashok @ Mekala Ashok S/o. Venkataiah (late), Aged about 20 years, R/o. H.No. 3-16, Kistampally VTC, Jadcherla PO, Mahbubnagar Mandal and District. …. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor for the railways and Sri. Vijay Kumar Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Mahabubnagar filed a complaint in

Crime No. 328 of 2024 for the offence under Section 153 and 174(c) of Railways Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows :

On 27-07-2024 at about 04:00 hours the complainant received a message from

Dy/SS/ Jadcherla through DSCR/ Hyd stating that as per information given by Lw6 and

Lw7 stated that Loco Number 41016 and 41022 reached at Km No. 94/14-15 near to home signal before that suddenly he has seen one big iron bunch on track.

Immediately applied emergency break and stopped the train at 03:28 hrs and checked 2 C.C. No.572/2024 engine BP pipe, loco and formation. After removal of the above said bunch the same was informed to power controller at 03:30 and departed 04:02 AM. Fouling clear 04.10

WAGON LOCO TO 06 WAGON (secr 22142421901). On receipt of information the complainant along with her staff visited the spot wherein the loco pilot i.e., Lw6 informed that while performing his duties he observed above said bunch across the track in between Jadcherla to Gollapally Railway station and he applied a emergency break. Immediately loco number 41016 and 41022 WG9HC/LGD crossed the iron bunch due to which uncoupled the BP pipe and formation and removed the same. On searching nearby no suspect is found. Later restarted the train at 04:02 hrs and kept the iron bunch besides the location box at Km No. 94/14-15 and inform the same to

Dy/SS/Jadcherla along with written memo. Due to this above said incident the train was detained for 34 minutes. The complainant along with her staff rushed to the spot no suspect was found and also track was clear and no engineering materials found in surrounding area. The complainant along with Lw5 observed iron fencing jali formed as a bunch which was kept at the spot which is not belongs to railway material. On confidential watch at the above spot the complainant along with her staff at 15:00 hrs found one person who was picking the crushed iron jali meanwhile he was detained by them and secured two mediators Lws3 and 4 and caused enquires with the accused he revealed his identity and revealed that he is a rag picker in the local area of Jadcherla and also in railway track. Likewise on 27-04-2024 he came to pick plastic and glass bottles and also found one iron fencing jali which was lying besides the boundary wall adjacent to the railway track he picked the same and went to Km No. 94/9-10 under

ROB No. 198 and kept the above said iron jali on railway track with intention to crush 3 C.C. No.572/2024 the same by the train and to sell away the same to the cycle vendors. Further he confessed that he also involved previously in same kind of offence vide Crime No.

141/2023 U/sec. 153 and 174(c) of Railways Act and also he is involved in crime no.

6/2024 u/sec. 3(a) RP (UP) Act. The complainant has seized the above said iron jali from the accused possession under the cover of panchanama and recorded his confession statement and prepared seizure list. The accused led and shown the place of offence and confessed that this is the place where he kept the iron jali on the railway track for crushing purpose. The complainant has drafted panchanama and proceeded to the back side of location boxes No. 6A/BB. The complainant has drafted observation panchanama and brought the accused along with seized property to the

RPF post Mahabubnagar and registered a case in Crime No. 328/2024 u/sec. 153 and 174(c) of Railways Act. Later the accused was issued 35(3) BNSS notice and the complainant has video recorded all the proceedings through mobile phone and same is secured through a source of their software and submitted to the Hon’ble Court 63(4) certificate. On 28-07-2024 the complainant has filed arrest and released report before the Hon’ble Court. On 31-07-2024 the complainant has address a letter to Sr./DEE to furnish the details of damages occurred to the above said loco for which he endorsed as no damage. On 20-08-2024 the complainant has recorded the statement of Lws3 and 4 mediators. On 26-09-2024 the complainant has recorded the statement of Lw6 and 7.

During the course of enquiries in this case the complainant came to know that the accused was convicted in C.C. No.288/2023 on the file of the Hon’ble II MM Railway

Court, Secunderabad. After completion of her enquiry the complainant has filed final complaint.

4 C.C. No.572/2024

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under Section 174(c) and 153 of

Railways Act.

4.After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s.230 BNSS.

5.The Accused was examined under Section 274 BNSS for the offence under

Section 174(c) and 153 of the Railways Act, 1989, by explaining all the incriminating material against him to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the complainant, Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force,

Mahabubnagar was examined as Pw1. Exs.P1 to Ex.P15 were marked.

7.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 351 of BNSS by explaining the incriminating evidence of the witnesses of the complainant to which the accused denied allegations. However, the accused reported no defence, hence defence evidence is closed

8.Heard the arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Section 174(c) and 153 of Railways Act beyond reasonable doubt or not?”.

5 C.C. No.572/2024

10.POINT:-

P.W.1 is the Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Mahabubnagar in her evidence she deposed that On 27-07-2024 at about 04:00 hours the Pw1 received a message from Dy/SS/ Jadcherla through DSCR/ Hyd stating that as per information given by Lw6 and Lw7 stated that Loco Number 41016 and 41022 reached at Km No.

94/14-15 near to home signal before that suddenly he has seen one big iron bunch on track. Immediately applied emergency break and stopped the train at 03:28 hrs and checked engine BP pipe, loco and formation. After removal of the above said bunch the same was informed to power controller at 03:30 and departed 04:02 AM. Fouling clear 04.10 WAGON LOCO TO 06 WAGON (secr 22142421901). On receipt of information the Pw1 along with her staff visited the spot wherein the loco pilot i.e.,

Lw6 informed that while performing his duties he observed above said bunch across the track in between Jadcherla to Gollapally Railway station and he applied a emergency break. Immediately loco number 41016 and 41022 WG9HC/LGD crossed the iron bunch due to which uncoupled the BP pipe and formation and removed the same.

On searching nearby no suspect is found. Later restarted the train at 04:02 hrs and kept the iron bunch besides the location box at Km No. 94/14-15 and inform the same to Dy/SS/Jadcherla along with written memo. Due to this above said incident the train was detained for 34 minutes. The Pw1 along with her staff rushed to the spot no suspect was found and also track was clear and no engineering materials found in surrounding area. The Pw1 along with Lw5 observed iron fencing jali formed as a bunch which was kept at the spot which is not belongs to railway material. On 6 C.C. No.572/2024 confidential watch at the above spot the Pw1 along with her staff at 15:00 hrs found one person who was picking the crushed iron jali meanwhile he was detained by them and secured two mediators Lws3 and 4 and caused enquires with the accused he revealed his identity and revealed that he is a rag picker in the local area of Jadcherla and also in railway track. Likewise on 27-04-2024 he came to pick plastic and glass bottles and also found one iron fencing jali which was lying besides the boundary wall adjacent to the railway track he picked the same and went to Km No. 94/9-10 under

ROB No. 198 and kept the above said iron jali on railway track with intention to crush the same by the train and to sell away the same to the cycle vendors. Further he confessed that he also involved previously in same kind of offence vide Crime No.

141/2023 U/sec. 153 and 174(c) of Railways Act and also he is involved in crime no.

6/2024 u/sec. 3(a) RP (UP) Act. The Pw1 has seized the above said iron jali from the accused possession under the cover of panchanama and recorded his confession statement and prepared seizure list. The accused led and shown the place of offence and confessed that this is the place where he kept the iron jali on the railway track for crushing purpose. The Pw1 has drafted panchanama and proceeded to the back side of location boxes No. 6A/BB. The Pw1 has drafted observation panchanama and brought the accused along with seized property to the RPF post Mahabubnagar and registered a case in Crime No. 328/2024 u/sec. 153 and 174(c) of Railways Act. Later the accused was issued 35(3) BNSS notice and the Pw1 has video recorded all the proceedings through mobile phone and same is secured through a source of their software and submitted to the Hon’ble Court 63(4) certificate. On 28-07-2024 the Pw1 has filed arrest and released report before the Hon’ble Court. On 31-07-2024 the Pw1 has 7 C.C. No.572/2024 address a letter to Sr./DEE to furnish the details of damages occurred to the above said loco for which he endorsed as no damage. On 20-08-2024 the Pw1 has recorded the statement of Lws3 and 4 mediators. On 26-09-2024 the Pw1 has recorded the statement of Lw6 and 7. During the course of enquiries in this case the Pw1 came to know that the accused was convicted in C.C. No.288/2023 on the file of the Hon’ble II MM

Railway Court, Secunderabad. After completion of her enquiry the Pw1 has filed final complaint.

11. During the course of cross examination of Pw1, the only suggestion put to his is that a false case is filed against the accused.

12. On perusal of entire evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that Pw1 recorded the statement of accused in the presence of mediators. Further the only suggestion put to PW1 is that a false case is filed against the accused. The evidence of P.W1 coupled with Exs.P1 to P15 would show that the accused was involved in commission of the above said offence. Moreover, this court is of the opinion that Pw1 is a public servant and that no motive can be attributed to Pw1 to file a false case against the accused and that the learned counsel for accused failed to elicit from the cross examination of

Pw1 anything favourable to the case of the accused. The prosecution by filing documents ie., observations recorded under Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 supported their case that the accused committed the offence u/s.174(c) and 153 of Railways Act.

13.The learned Counsel for the accused would contend that the panch witnesses to panchanama and Railway Officer who prepared Panchanama and were not examined and as such benefits of doubt should go in favour of the accused. As observed above 8 C.C. No.572/2024

PW.1 is a public servant and she has no animosity against the accused to depose falsely and this court does not find any reason to Pw.1 to implicate the accused in a false case. Hence it is held that as the evidence of Pw.1 is quite convincing and reliable in nature, non examination of panchas and railway officer who prepared

Panchanama is not fatal to the case of complainant. Considering the fact that no worth full suggestions were suggested to Pw.1 by showing the reasons for implicating the accused in a false case and as the testimony of Pw.1 is quite convincing and reliable in nature, further the confessional statement of the accused would prove that the accused has committed the offence. Hence, this court is of opinion that prosecution by filling cogent evidence and by examining the complainant succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.153 and 174(c) of Railways Act 1989 and accordingly accused is found guilty.

14. The Learned Counsel for the accused would further contend that the confessional statements of the accused have no evidentiary value as the same was obtained by force. On the other hand the Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that under

Railway Act the Railway Protection Force personnel have authority to record the statement of the accused U/s.180(B) of the Railways Act and the same can be relied upon to connect the guilt of the accused. This court relied on the following decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of BALA KISHAN V/S State of MAHARASHTRA (1981 AIR 379). Ex.P5 In the said Judgment it was held that the statement recorded by the officer of Railway Protection Force is admissible in evidence. Hence, in view of the above said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court this court is of the opinion that the 9 C.C. No.572/2024 complainant by examining herself as Pw1 and also marking Exs.P1 to P15 could successfully prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

15. In the result the Accused is found guilty for the offence Under Section 153 and 174(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 and he is convicted Under Section 278(2) of the

BNSS.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd Day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

16. When the accused was questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed he pleaded that he has to look after his old age Parents and his total family is depended on him and the accused further submits that by mistake the incident was happened and that he pleaded mercy to take lenient view and he further submits that he is in jail since 18-02-2025 to till today i.e., on 23-04-2025 total for a period of 02 months 05 days.

17. As the offence committed by the accused is against the interest of public at large. As such this court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act.

18. This court is of an opinion that this is a fit case for taking a lenient view against the accused while imposing sentence. As such, this Court is of the opinion that imposing sentence to the accused would meet the ends of Justice.

10 C.C. No.572/2024

19. In the result the accused is found guilty for the offence Under Section 153 and 174(c) of the Railways Act 1989 and he is convicted Under Section 278(2) of the

BNSS and the accused is sentenced to suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of 04 months for the offence under section 153 of Railway Act and he further sentence to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) in default to suffer SI for a period of 2 months for the offence u/sec. 174(c) of Railway Act and the remand period undergone by the accused from 18-02-2025 to till today i.e., on 23-04-2025 total for a period of 2 months 5 days shall be set off under section 468 BNSS. The Accused shall be released only after serving the remaining sentence of imprisonment if any and if he is not required in any other cases. The unmarked case property if any shall be return to its concern party after expiry of appeal time is over. The bond and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 481-A BNSS.

19. Accused is informed about his right of appeal and the accused is also informed that if, he has no means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal, he is at liberty to approach District Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad for free legal aid.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd Day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1: Smt. Syeda TahseenNone 11 C.C. No.572/2024

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Ex.P-1: is the Joint Observation Report, Nil Ex.P-2: is the Rough Sketch, Ex.P3: is the Message copy, Ex.P4: is the Panchanama, Ex.P5: is the Accused statement, Ex.P6: is the Seizure list, Ex.P7: is the Crime and occurrence report, Ex.P8: is the spot panchanama, Ex.P9: is the Observation panchanama, Ex.P10: is the train detention certificate, Ex.P11 and 12: are the mediators statements Lws3 and 4, Ex.P13 and 14: are the statements of Lws6 and 7, Ex.P15: is the Certified copy of Judgment in C.C. No. 288/2023.

MO`s. Marked for:

Nil Nil

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

//True Copy//

1 C.C.No.512/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

Present: Sri Gouse Pasha Md II Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Railways) Secunderabad

Dated the 23rd Day of April, 2025

C.C. No. 512 of 20 24 BETWEEN:

The Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Workshop Lallaguda post. … Complainant AND

1. Rasuri Bhanu Prakash, S/o. R. Shankar, Aged about 35 years, R/o. H.No. 10-7-719/1, Hamalbasthi, Chikalguda, Near Maisamma temple, Secunderabad, present residing near Wersley Church, Padma Rao Nagar, Hamalbasthi.

2. Burra Anitha, W/o. Rasuri Bhanu Prakash, age about 35 years, R/o. near Wersley Church, Padma Rao Nagar, Hamalbasthi.

3. Thigulla Ashok, S/o. Thigulla Janardhan, Aged about 36 years, R/o.H.No. 1-26, Laxmapur, Thoguta Mandalam,

Eligadda Kistapur, Medak Dist. .....Accused No. 1 to 3

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor for the railways and Sri. G. Vidhyakar Rao Advocate, Ld. counsel for the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

- : J U D G M E N T : -

1)The Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Workshop Lallaguda post filed a complaint in Crime No. 05 of 2024 for the offence under Section 3 (a) of

Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short 3 (a) of RP (UP)

Act. 1966) against the accused Nos. 1 to 3.

2 C.C.No.512/2024

2) The brief facts of the case are as follows : On 26-07-2024 at about 06:24 hrs the complainant along with her staff on confidential watch near condemned

Railway quarter No. 303, SCR Employees Sang, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad detained two persons i.e., A1 and A2 were moving suspiciously with carrying a white polythene bag on opening the bag found 2 signal hood in each bag.

The complainant enquired with them they stated that A1 is doing plumbing work and A2 working as house maid and to fulfill their needs they committed this offence. On 26-07-2024 A1 along with A2 who is his wife to commit an offence of theft they are found 2 Nos. of signal hood besides boundary wall and stolen the same. Meanwhile they were going to dispose it off they were caught by them. On her observation the complainant has found the theft property belongs to railways used by signal department. The

A1 and A2 did not produced any bill by possessing the above said railway material with them. As per the information the complainant along with mediators proceeded to the boundary wall which is place of offence. On further enquiry with A1 and A2 they revealed that they are committed theft of railway property previously and the same is sold to Ashok i.e., A3 for an amount of Rs. 600/-. On further enquiry about A1 he revealed that one more case is registered with Secunderabad RPF post with regard to theft of railway property. The complainant has seized the railway property and the complainant has recorded the accused Nos. 1 and 2 statements and seized stolen property under the cover of panchanama. The A1 and A2 led and shown the shop of A3. They identified with each other and on enquiry with

A3 he confessed that he has received the stolen railway property from A1 and A2 and voluntarily shown above said railway property. On further enquiry with A3 he stated that it is his first offence. The complainant has seized the stolen property i.e., 1 No. of 3 aspects signal unit under the cover of panchanama recorded the confession statement of A3. The complainant has brought A1 to A3 to the RPF post Workshop Lallaguda and the complainant registered a case in crime No.5/2024 u/sec.3(a) RP (UP) Act on 3 C.C.No.512/2024 26-07-2024. On the same day the complainant has issued 35 BNSS notice to

A1 to A3. On 26-07-2024 Lw3 has issued theft memo for missing of 1 no. of 3 aspects signal units V/Rs. 3,000/-, 2 Nos. of signal hood V/Rs. 1,000/- total

V/Rs. 4,000/-. On 09-09-2024 the complainant has obtained certified copies of verification certificate issued by Legal Metrology department. On 31-07- 2024, 02-09-2024 the complainant examined and recorded the statements of mediators Lws 4 and 5. On 10-09-2024 the complainant has obtained ownership particulars of A3 shop. On 11-09-2024 the complainant has examined and recorded the statement of scrap shop owner /Lw8. On 11-09- 2024 the complainant has obtained case property certificate from Lw9. The complainant has also enquiried about the previous offence of A1 and it is registered in crime No. 7/2024 U/sec. 3(a) RP (UP) Act of RPF/SC. After completion of the enquiry filed the final complaint.

3)This case was taken on file for the offence under section 3(a) of RP (UP)

Act,1966.

4)After appearance of the accused Nos. 1 to 3, copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/s.230 BNSS.

5)The accused Nos. 1 to 3 were examined under Section 269(2) of BNSS by explaining all the incriminating material against them to which the accused

Nos. 1 and 3 denied the allegations. A charge under section 3(a) of RP (UP)

Act, 1966 were framed and explained to the accused Nos. 1 to 3 to which the accused Nos. 1 to 3 pleaded not guilty.

6)On behalf of the complainant, Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force,

Workshop Lallaguda post was examined as Pw.1 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P14 and

Mos.1 and 2 are marked.

7)After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 351 of BNSS by explaining the incriminating evidence of the witnesses of the complainant to which the accused Nos. 1 to 3 denied 4 C.C.No.512/2024 allegations. However, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 reported no defence, hence defence evidence is closed.

8)Heard the arguments of both sides.

9)Now the point for consideration is : “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 beyond reasonable doubt or not?”.

10)POINT:-

Section 3 of RP (UP) Amendment Act, 2012 deals with imposition of penalty for unlawful possession of Railway Property. Section 3 of the RP (UP) Act, 1966 reads as follows:

“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.”

11)A plain reading of the above section shows that whoever are found in possession of Railway property unless he/she proves the railway property fell into his possession lawfully he/she shall be punishable. Thus it shows that if the complainant proves the possession of railway property with the accused

Nos. 1 to 3, the burden lies on accused to rebut the same.

12)In this case, the prosecution has examined the Sub-Inspector of Railway

Protection Force, Workshop Lallaguda post who alleged to have found the accused Nos. 1 to 3 with possession of railway property as Pw1. Pw1 in her evidence deposed that On 26-07-2024 at about 06:24 hrs the Pw1 along with her staff on confidential watch near condemned Railway quarter No. 303,

SCR Employees Sang, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad detained two persons i.e.,

A1 and A2 were moving suspiciously with carrying a white polythene bag on opening the bag found 2 signal hood in each bag. The Pw1 enquired with them they stated that A1 is doing plumbing work and A2 working as house 5 C.C.No.512/2024 maid and to fulfill their needs they committed this offence. On 26-07-2024

A1 along with A2 who is his wife to commit an offence of theft they are found 2 Nos. of signal hood besides boundary wall and stolen the same.

Meanwhile they were going to dispose it off they were caught by them. On her observation the Pw1 has found the theft property belongs to railways used by signal department. The A1 and A2 did not produced any bill by possessing the above said railway material with them. As per the information the Pw1 along with mediators proceeded to the boundary wall which is place of offence. On further enquiry with A1 and A2 they revealed that they are committed theft of railway property previously and the same is sold to Ashok i.e., A3 for an amount of Rs. 600/-. On further enquiry about

A1 he revealed that one more case is registered with Secunderabad RPF post with regard to theft of railway property. The Pw1 has seized the railway property and the Pw1 has recorded the accused Nos. 1 and 2 statements and seized stolen property under the cover of panchanama. The A1 and A2 led and shown the shop of A3. They identified with each other and on enquiry with A3 he confessed that he has received the stolen railway property from

A1 and A2 and voluntarily shown above said railway property. On further enquiry with A3 he stated that it is his first offence. The Pw1 has seized the stolen property i.e., 1 No. of 3 aspects signal unit under the cover of panchanama recorded the confession statement of A3. The Pw1 has brought

A1 to A3 to the RPF post Workshop Lallaguda and the Pw1 registered a case in crime No.5/2024 u/sec.3(a) RP (UP) Act on 26-07-2024. On the same day the Pw1 has issued 35 BNSS notice to A1 to A3. On 26-07-2024 Lw3 has issued theft memo for missing of 1 no. of 3 aspects signal units V/Rs.

3,000/-, 2 Nos. of signal hood V/Rs. 1,000/- total V/Rs. 4,000/-. On 09-09- 2024 the Pw1 has obtained certified copies of verification certificate issued by Legal Metrology department. On 31-07-2024, 02-09-2024 the Pw1 examined and recorded the statements of mediators Lws 4 and 5. On 10-09- 2024 the Pw1 has obtained ownership particulars of A3 shop. On 11-09-2024 the Pw1 has examined and recorded the statement of scrap shop owner 6 C.C.No.512/2024 /Lw8. On 11-09-2024 the Pw1 has obtained case property certificate from

Lw9. The Pw1 has also enquiried about the previous offence of A1 and it is registered in crime No. 7/2024 U/sec. 3(a) RP (UP) Act of RPF/SC. After completion of the enquiry filed the final complaint.

13)A reading of Ex.P1 and Ex.P6 would show that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 committed theft of Mo1 and Mo2 and Case property certificate Ex.P10 would show that Mo1 and Mo2 are belongs to Railways.

14)In the cross examination of Pw.1, the only suggestion put to her is that a false case is filed for statistical purpose and that no property was seized from the accused Nos. 1 to 3. It is to be noted that Sub-Inspector, Railway

Protection Force is a public servant and that no motive has been attributed to her to depose falsely against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. Apart from that

Ex.P10 would prove that the Case property belongs to Railways. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the complainant by examining herself as Pw.1 proved the recovery of Mo.1 and Mo2 which belongs to Railways from the possession of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 under cover of panchanama (Exs.P1 and P6). Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the complainant proved the fact of recovery of Mo.1 and 2 from the accused Nos. 1 to 3.

15)Now it has to be seen whether the accused Nos. 1 to 3 discharges the burden on them by proving the fact that Mos.1 and 2 came into their possession lawfully. The suggestion put to Pw.1, during the course of cross examination is that a false case is filed against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and also denied the recovery of Mos.1 and 2 from the possession of the accused Nos. 1 to 3.

Moreover, it is not the case of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 that Mos.1 and 2 are in possession lawfully.

16)The learned counsel for the accused Nos. 1 to 3 would contend that other witnesses were not examined and as such benefit of doubt can be given to accused nos. 1 to 3 and as observed above, Pw.1 is a public servant and she has no animosity to depose against the accused Nos. 1 to 2 thus this court 7 C.C.No.512/2024 does not find any reason for Pw.1 to implicate the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in a false case and it is already held that the evidence of Pw.1 is quite convincing and reliable in nature, non-examination of other witnesses is not fatal to the case of the complainant. Moreover the learned counsel for the accused Nos. 1 to 3 could not give any worthfull suggestion to show that the complainant filed a false case against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. Further, the accused Nos.

1 to 3 did not file any cogent evidence on her behalf to support her contention that a false case is filed against them. Thus, the complainant succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused nos. 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 and accordingly they found guilty.

17)Learned Counsel for the accused Nos. 1 to 3 further contends that the confessional statement of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 have no evidentiary value as the same was obtained by force. On the other hand, Learned Public

Prosecutor would submit that under Railways Act the Railway Protection

Force personnel have authority to record the statement of the Accused nos. 1 to 3 under Section 180 (B) of the Railways Act and the same can be relied upon to prove the guilt of accused Nos. 1 to 3. This court also relied on the following decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BALKISHAN Vs

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1981 AIR 379). Ex.P2 to 4 Wherein it was held that the statements recorded by the officer of Railway Protection Force is admissible in evidence. Hence, in view of the above said decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court, this court is of the opinion that the complainant by

examining herself as Pw1 and also marking Exs.P1 to P14, and Mos.1 and 2 could successfully prove the guilt of the accused nos. 1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubts for the offence Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966.

18)In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found guilty for the charge under

Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 and they are convicted u/s.271(2) of

BNSS.

8 C.C.No.512/2024 Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd Day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

19)When the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence likely to be imposed on them, they pleaded that they are poor persons and their whole family are solely depended on them at present they are unemployed and further pleaded that this is their first offence.

20)As the offence committed by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are not in the interest of public at large as such this court is not inclined to extend the benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

21)This court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for taking a lenient view against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 while imposing the fine. The complainant in her chief stated that she came to know that there is a previous crime registered for A1 at RPF Secunderabad post.

22) In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence under

Section 3(a) of RP UP Act 1966 and they are convicted u/s.271(2) BNSS., and they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each (Rupees Three thousand only) as per the value of property in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 06 months each (Total Rs. 9,000/-). Mo1 and Mo2 are the case property deposited vide P.I. No. 250/2024 dt. 24-10-2024 shall be return to the concerned party after expiry of appeal time. The bond and bail bonds of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 481-A BNSS.

23)The accused nos. 1 to 3 are informed about their rights of appeal and the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are also informed that if they have no means to engage an advocate they can take the services of district legal services authority,

Hyderabad for free legal aid.

9 C.C.No.512/2024

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rdDay of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

A P P E N D I X O F E V I D E N C E

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW.1: Smt. P. Chandini None

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Ex.P-1: is the Panchanama-I, Ex P2 to A4: are the Accused Nos.1 to 3 statements, Ex.P5 : is the seizure list-I, Ex.P 6: is the Panchanama-II, Ex.P7 : is the Seizure list -II, Ex.P8 : is the Rough Sketch-I, Ex.P9: is the Rough Sketch-II, Ex.P10: is the case property certificate, Ex.P11 and 12 : are statements of mediators Lws4 and 5, Ex.P13 and Ex.P14: are the statements of Lw8 and Lw9.

MO’s. Marked for:

Mo.1 :is 01 No. of 03 aspects signal unit,Nil Mo.2 :is 02 Nos. of Signal Hoods.

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

//True Copy//

1 C.C. No.523/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

Present: Sri. Gouse Pasha Md II Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Railways) Secunderabad

Dated the 22nd Day of April, 2025

C.C. No. 523 of 202 4 BETWEEN: The Asst. Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kurnool Post. … Complainant AND M. Mahesh, S/o. Kurmanna, Age: 26 years, R/o. H.No. 13-103/A, Dharur Mandal, Jogulamba, Gadwal.

... Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor for the railways and Sri. K.K. Gupta Advocate, learned counsel for the accused and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Asst. Sub- Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kurnool filed a complaint in Crime No.275 of 2024 for the offence under Section 154 of

Railways Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows :

On 19-08-2024 at about 11:15 hours the complainant received message from SM/Gadwal through DSCR/Hyd regarding that one duty gateman of LC gate No. 98 at Km No. 186/12-13 between Gadwal to Shadnagar railway station 2 C.C. No.523/2024 informed that at about 11:00 hrs while closing the gate for passing of train No.

DN 17254 express suddenly one Auto bearing No. TS 33 T 6076 hit and damage the above said LC gate B boom of while the gate was in closed condition. On receipt of the information the complainant rushed to the spot. The complainant enquired on duty gate man/Lw2 who narrated the incident while the gate was in closed condition the accused drove his vehicle in rush and negligent manner and hit the LC gate boom resulting the damage of LC gate B Boom. Due to fear the accused fled away along with vehicle from the spot and the complainant has conducted observation panchanama and drafted rough sketch and prepared joint observation report and recorded the statement of Lw2 and then the complainant registered a case in crime No. 275/2024 for the offence u/sec. 154 of R.A on 19-08-2024. In this regard crime and occurrence report was submitted. On 26-08-2024 on confidential watch at Lc gate No. 98 traced and detained one person along with crime vehicle and called two mediators caused enquiries in their presence. The accused have revealed his identity and admitted the above offence in the presence of mediators Lws 4 and 5. On enquiry the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., accused produced the R.C which stands in the name of M. Dattatriya. The complainant has recorded his confession statement and seized the crime vehicle under the cover of panchanama and connected him to the above said crime and brought him to the RPF post Kurnool by preparing seizure list. The accused along with seized 3 C.C. No.523/2024

Auto was brought to RPF Out post Gadwal and issued notice u/sec. 35(3) of

BNSS. During the course of enquiries on 26-08-2024 the complainant has examined and recorded the statement of on duty gateman/Lw2 and obtained damage certificate from Lw3 and damage cost Rs. 8,000/-. On 26-08-2024 the complainant has examined and recorded the statements of Mediators lws 4 and

5. On 26-08-2024 the complainant has recorded the statement of Lw6. After completion of entire enquiries the complainant filed the final complaint.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under Section 154 of Railways

Act.

4.After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s.230 BNSS.

5.The Accused was examined under Section 274 of BNSS for the offence under Section 154 of the Railways Act, 1989, by explaining all the incriminating material against him to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the complainant, Asst. Sub- Inspector, Railway Protection

Force, Kurnool were examined as Pw1. Exs.P1 to Ex.9 were marked.

7.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS by explaining the incriminating evidence of the 4 C.C. No.523/2024 witnesses of the complainant to which the accused denied allegations. However, the accused reported no defence, hence defence evidence is closed.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 154 of Railways Act beyond reasonable doubt or not?”.

10.POINT:-

P.W.1 is the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Kurnool in his evidence he deposed that On 19-08-2024 at about 11:15 hours the Pw1 received message from SM/Gadwal through DSCR/Hyd regarding that one duty gateman of LC gate No. 98 at Km No. 186/12-13 between Gadwal to Shadnagar railway station informed that at about 11:00 hrs while closing the gate for passing of train No. DN 17254 express suddenly one Auto bearing No. TS 33 T 6076 hit and damage the above said LC gate B boom of while the gate was in closed condition. On receipt of the information the Pw1 rushed to the spot.

The Pw1 enquired on duty gate man/Lw2 who narrated the incident while the gate was in closed condition the accused drove his vehicle in rush and negligent manner and hit the LC gate boom resulting the damage of LC gate B Boom.

Due to fear the accused fled away along with vehicle from the spot and the

Pw1 has conducted observation panchanama and drafted rough sketch and prepared joint observation report and recorded the statement of Lw2 and then the Pw1 registered a case in crime No. 275/2024 for the offence u/sec. 154 of 5 C.C. No.523/2024

R.A on 19-08-2024. In this regard crime and occurrence report was submitted.

On 26-08-2024 on confidential watch at Lc gate No. 98 traced and detained one person along with crime vehicle and called two mediators caused enquiries in their presence. The accused have revealed his identity and admitted the above offence in the presence of mediators Lws 4 and 5. On enquiry the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., accused produced the R.C which stands in the name of M.

Dattatriya. The Pw1 has recorded his confession statement and seized the crime vehicle under the cover of panchanama and connected him to the above said crime and brought him to the RPF post Kurnool by preparing seizure list. The accused along with seized Auto was brought to RPF Out post Gadwal and issued notice u/sec. 35(3) of BNSS. During the course of enquiries on 26-08- 2024 the Pw1 has examined and recorded the statement of on duty gateman/Lw2 and obtained damage certificate from Lw3 and damage cost Rs.

8,000/-. On 26-08-2024 the Pw1 has examined and recorded the statements of

Mediators lws 4 and 5. On 26-08-2024 the Pw1 has recorded the statement of

Lw6. After completion of entire enquiries the Pw1 filed the final complaint.

11. During the course of cross examination of Pw1, he admitted that there are no previous cases against the accused. He denied to the suggestion that never drove his vehicle in a rash or negligence manner nor caused any damage to the railway property. He admitted that it has not been mentioned in his final report filed before this Hon'ble Court regarding the compensation u/sec. 357(A) 6 C.C. No.523/2024

Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P5 (Damage certificate). He admitted that he has not seized the exact damaged portion of the gate. He denied to the suggestion that Lw3 has not given the exact damaged portion cost in detaily. He admitted that has not been mentioned anywhere in the railway act regarding the claim of damage to pay the compensation to the railways as per sec. 357(A) of Cr.P.C. He denied to the suggestion that accused is falsely implicated in this case. He denied to the suggestion that accused never gave any confessional statement and by means of threatening and obtained the signatures on white papers in the RPF post.

12. On perusal of entire evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that Pw1 recorded the statement of accused in the presence of mediators. Further the only suggestion put to PW1 is that a false case is filed against the accused. A perusal of Ex.P5 damage certificate shows that the damage was caused at LC gate No. 98 at Km No. 186/12-13 between Gadwal to Shadnagar railway station. The evidence of P.W1 coupled with Exs.P1 to P9 would show that damage was caused to the railway property and that the accused was involved in commission of the above said offence. Moreover, this court is of the opinion that Pw1 is a public servant and that no motive can be attributed to Pw1 to file a false case against the accused and that the learned counsel for accused failed to elicit from the cross examination of Pw1 anything favourable to the case of the accused. The prosecution by filing documents ie., observations 7 C.C. No.523/2024 recorded under Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 supported their case that the accused committed the offence u/s.154 of Railways Act.

13.The learned Counsel for the accused would contend that the panch witnesses to panchanama and Railway Officer who issued damaged certificate was not examined and as such benefits of doubt should go in favour of the accused. As observed above PW.1 is a public servant and he has no animosity against the accused to depose falsely and this court does not find any reason to

Pw.1 to implicate the accused in a false case. Hence it is held that as the evidence of Pw.1 is quite convincing and reliable in nature, non examination of panchas and railway officer who issued damage certificate is not fatal to the case of complainant. Considering the fact that no worth full suggestions were suggested to Pw.1 by showing the reasons for implicating the accused in a false case and as the testimony of Pw.1 is quite convincing and reliable in nature, further the confessional statement of the accused would prove that the accused has committed the offence and the damage is caused to the Railway Property.

Hence, this court is of opinion that prosecution by filling cogent evidence and by examining the complainant succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.154 of Railways Act 1989 and accordingly accused is found guilty.

8 C.C. No.523/2024

14. The Learned Counsel for the accused would further contend that the confessional statements of the accused have no evidentiary value as the same was obtained by force. On the other hand the Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that under Railway Act the Railway Protection Force personnel have authority to record the statement of the accused U/s.180(B) of the Railways Act and the same can be relied upon to connect the guilt of the accused. This court relied on the following decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of BALA

KISHAN V/S State of MAHARASHTRA (1981 AIR 379). In the said Judgment it was held that the statement recorded i.e.,Ex.P3 by the officer of Railway

Protection Force is admissible in evidence. Hence, in view of the above said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court this court is of the opinion that the complainant by examining himself as Pw1 and also marking Exs.P1 to P9 could successfully prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

15. In the result the Accused is found guilty for the offence Under Section 154 of the Railways Act, 1989 and he is convicted Under Section 278(2) of

BNSS.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd Day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD)

9 C.C. No.523/2024

16. When the accused was questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed he pleaded that he is a driver and he has to look after his old age Parents and his total family is depended on him and the accused further submits that by mistake the incident was happened and that he pleaded mercy to take lenient view and further pleaded that this is his first offence.

17. As the offence committed by the accused is against the interest of public at large. As such this court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

18. This court is of an opinion that this is a fit case for taking a lenient view against the accused while imposing sentence. As such, this Court is of the opinion that imposing only fine to the accused would meet the ends of Justice.

19. In the result the accused is found guilty for the offence Under Section 154 of the Railways Act 1989 and he is convicted Under Section 278(2) of BNSS and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) (basing on the damage of the property) in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months for the offence Under Section 154 of the Railways

Act, 1989. The interim custody of crime vehicle in Crl.M.P. No. 695/2024,

dated 19-09-2024 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time is over.

The bond and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 481-A BNSS.

10 C.C. No.523/2024

20. Accused is informed about his right of appeal and the accused is also informed that if, he has no means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal, he is at liberty to approach District Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad for free legal aid.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd Day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW.1: Sri. B Murali None

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Ex.P-1: is the Joint Observation report,Nil Ex.P-2: is the Panchanama, Ex.P3: is the Accused statement, Ex.P4: is the statement of gateman/Lw2, Ex.P5: is the Damage certificate, Ex.P6 and 7: are the statements of Mediators Lws4 and 5, Ex.P8: is the Message Copy, Ex.P9: is the statement of Lw6. MO`s. Marked for: Nil Nil

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD)

//True Copy//

1 C.C.No.510/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

Present: Sri Gouse Pasha Md II Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Railways) Secunderabad

Dated the 23rd Day of April, 2025.

C.C. No. 510 of 20 24 BETWEEN: The Asst. Sub- Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Mahabubnagar. … Complainant AND Manda Krishna, S/o. Manda Venkataiah Late, age: 37 years, R/o.H.No.19-63, S.V.P. Nagar, Badepally, Jadcherla. …. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor for the railways and Sri. G.A. Nikhil Advocate, Ld.counsel for the accused and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

- : J U D G M E N T : -

1)The Asst. Sub- Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Mahabubangar post filed a complaint in Crime No.07 of 2024 for the offence under Section 3 (a) of

Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short 3 (a) of RP (UP)

Act. 1966) against the accused.

2)The brief facts of the case are as follows :

On 17-06-2024 at about 15:30 hrs, the complainant along with his staff while on confidential watch at Km No. 95/1-03 between Gollapally –

Jadcherla railway station yard detained the accused, while he was moving suspicious manner with a polythene bag, the complainant immediately secured two mediators i.e., Lws-3 and 4 on the examination of the bag they found 02 Nos. of fish plates valued of Rs. 2600/- and 09 nos. of E.R.

2 C.C.No.510/2024 clips valued of Rs. 1080/-. The accused failed to show the accountability and possession of the above said railway property. on enquiry accused confessed the commission of this offence and the complainant conducted panchanama. Then the complainant seized the railway property and brought to RPF Mahbubnagar Post along with the accused then the complainant registered a case in Crime No. 7/2024 under section 3(a) RP (UP) Act the total value of the property V/Rs. 3680/-. Then the complainant registered a case since offence are bailable in nature the complainant released the accused by complying 41-A Cr.P.C notice. On the same day the complainant has filed crime and occurrence report. On 17-06-2024 the complainant received theft memo from Lw5. On 19-06-2024 the complainant received case property certificate from Lw5. On 20-06-2024 the complainant examined and recorded the statements of Lw3 and 4 mediators. After completion of the enquiry filed the final complaint.

3)This case was taken on file for the offence under section 3(a) of RP (UP)

Act,1966.

4)After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5)The accused was examined under Section 246 (2) of Cr.PC. by explaining all the incriminating material against him to which the accused denied the allegations. A charge under section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 was framed and explained to the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty.

6)On behalf of the complainant, Asst. Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force,

Mahabubangar post was examined as Pw.1 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P7 and Mo.1 and Mo.2 are marked.

7)After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence of the witnesses of the complainant to which the accused denied allegations.

However, the accused reported no defence, hence defence evidence is closed.

3 C.C.No.510/2024

8)Heard the arguments of both sides.

9)Now the point for consideration is : “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 beyond reasonable doubt or not?”.

10)POINT:-

Section 3 of RP (UP) Amendment Act, 2012 deals with imposition of penalty for unlawful possession of Railway Property. Section 3 of the RP (UP) Act, 1966 reads as follows:

“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.”

11)A plain reading of the above section shows that whoever is found in possession of Railway property unless he/she proves the railway property fell into his possession lawfully he/she shall be punishable. Thus it shows that if the complainant proves the possession of railway property with the accused, the burden lies on accused to rebut the same.

12)In this case, the prosecution has examined the Asst. Sub Inspector of Railway

Protection Force, Mahabubnagar who alleged to have found the accused with possession of railway property as Pw1. Pw1 in his evidence deposed that On 17-06-2024 at about 15:30 hrs, the Pw1 along with his staff while on confidential watch at Km No. 95/1-03 between Gollapally – Jadcherla railway station yard detained the accused, while he was moving suspicious manner with a polythene bag, the Pw1 immediately secured two mediators i.e., Lws-3 and 4 on the examination of the bag they found 02 Nos. of fish plates valued of Rs. 2600/- and 09 nos. of E.R. clips valued of Rs. 1080/-.

The accused failed to show the accountability and possession of the above said railway property. on enquiry accused confessed the commission of this 4 C.C.No.510/2024 offence and the Pw1 conducted panchanama. Then the Pw1 seized the railway property and brought to RPF Mahbubnagar Post along with the accused then the Pw1 registered a case in Crime No. 7/2024 under section 3(a) RP (UP) Act the total value of the property V/Rs. 3680/-. Then the Pw1 registered a case since offence are bailable in nature the Pw1 released the accused by complying 41-A Cr.P.C notice. On the same day the Pw1 has filed crime and occurrence report. On 17-06-2024 the Pw1 received theft memo from Lw5. On 19-06-2024 the Pw1 received case property certificate from Lw5. On 20-06-2024 the Pw1 examined and recorded the statements of

Lw3 and 4 mediators. After completion of the enquiry filed the final complaint.

13)A reading of Ex.P1 would show that the accused committed theft of Mo.1 and Mo.2 and Case property certificate Ex.P5 would show that Mo.1 and

Mo.2 are belongs to Railways.

14)In the cross examination of Pw.1, the only suggestion put to him is that a false case is filed for statistical purpose and that no property was seized from the accused. It is to be noted that Asst. Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection

Force is a public servant and that no motive has been attributed to him to depose falsely against the accused. Apart from that Ex.P5 would prove that the Case property belongs to Railways. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the complainant by examining himself as Pw.1 proved the recovery of Mo.1 which belongs to Railways from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama (Ex.P1). Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the complainant proved the fact of recovery of Mo.1 and Mo2 from the accused.

15)Now it has to be seen whether the accused discharges the burden on him by proving the fact that Mo.1 and Mo2 came into his possession lawfully. The suggestion put to Pw.1, during the course of cross examination is that a false case is filed against the accused and also denied the recovery of Mo. 1 and

Mo2 from the possession of the accused. Moreover, it is not the case of the accused that Mo.1 and Mo2 are possession lawfully.

5 C.C.No.510/2024

16)The learned counsel for the accused would contend that other witnesses were not examined and as such benefit of doubt can be given to accused and as observed above, Pw.1 is a public servant and he have no animosity to depose against the accused thus this court does not find any reason for Pw.1 to implicate the accused in a false case and it is already held that the evidence of Pw.1 is quite convincing and reliable in nature, non-examination of other witnesses is not fatal to the case of the complainant. Moreover the learned counsel for the accused could not give any worthfull suggestion to show that the complainant filed a false case against the accused. Further, the accused did not file any cogent evidence on his behalf to support his contention that a false case is filed against him. Thus, the complainant succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 3

(a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 and accordingly he found guilty.

17)Learned Counsel for the accused further contends that the confessional statement of the accused has no evidentiary value as the same was obtained by force. On the other hand, Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that under Railways Act the Railway Protection Force personnel have authority to record the statement of the Accused under Section 180 (B) of the Railways

Act and the same can be relied upon to prove the guilt of accused. This court also relied on the following decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BALKISHAN Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1981 AIR 379). Ex.P2

Wherein it was held that the statement recorded by the officer of Railway

Protection Force is admissible in evidence. Hence, in view of the above said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this court is of the opinion that the complainant by examining himself as Pw1 and also marking Exs.P1 to P7, and Mo.1 and Mo2 could successfully prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts for the offence Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966.

6 C.C.No.510/2024

18)In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charge under Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 and he is convicted u/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd Day of March, 2025.

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

19)When the accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence likely to be imposed on him, he pleaded that he is poor person and his whole family is solely depended on him at present he is unemployed and he further pleaded that this is his first offence and also further pleaded that he is in jail since 18-03-2025 to till today 23-04-2025.

20)As the offence committed by the accused is not in the interest of public at large as such this court is not inclined to extend the benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

21)This court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for taking a lenient view against the accused while imposing the fine.

22)In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 3(a) of

RP UP Act 1966 and he is convicted u/s.248(2) Cr.P.C., and the accused is sentenced for an imprisonment for a period of 1 month 05 days and the remand period undergone by the accused 18-03-2025 to till today i.e., on 23- 04-2025 total for a period of 1 Month 05 days shall be set off under section 428 Criminal Procedure Code and he sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as per the value of property in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 02 months for the offence u/sec. 3(a) RP UP Act.

Mo1 and Mo2 are the case property deposited vide P.I. No. 246/2024 dt 14- 11-2024 shall be return to the concerned party after expiry of appeal time.

The bond and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C..

7 C.C.No.510/2024

23)The accused is informed about his right of appeal and the accused is also informed that if he have no means to engage an advocate he can take the services of district legal services authority, Hyderabad for free legal aid.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rdDay of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

( FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

A P P E N D I X O F E V I D E N C E

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

P ROSECUTION : DEFENCE:

PW.1: Sri M. Srinivas None

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Ex.P-1:is Panchanama, Ex.P2: is Accused statement, Ex.P3: is the Seizure list, Ex P4: is the Theft Report, Ex.P5: is the Case property certificate, Ex.P6 and 7: are the statements of mediators Lws3 and 4.

MO’s. Marked for:

Mo.1 : is 02 Nos. of Fish platesNil Mo.2 : is 09 Nos. of E.R. Clips.

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

//True Copy//

1 C.C.No.484/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

Present: Sri Gouse Pasha Md II Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Railways) Secunderabad

Dated the 22nd Day of April, 2025.

C.C. No. 484 of 20 24 BETWEEN: The Asst. Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Secunderabad. … Complainant AND Mohammad Kaled, S/o. Hussain, age: 37 years, R/o. H.No. D-57, Boragaon Post, Nizamabad. …. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor for the railways and Sri. A. Nikhil Advocate, Ld. counsel for the accused and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

- : J U D G M E N T : -

1)The Asst. Sub- Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Secunderabad filed a complaint in Crime No.11 of 2024 for the offence under Section 3 (a) of

Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short 3 (a) of RP (UP)

Act. 1966) against the accused.

2)The brief facts of the case are as follows :

On 22-06-2024 at about 04:00 PM, the complainant along with his staff while on confidential watch at lower yard Secunderabad while he was moving on suspicious manner, the complainant immediately secured two mediators i.e., Lws-2 and 3 on the examination of the bag they found 12

Nos. of Push cock Railway taps valued of Rs.1536/- (appx.) On enquiry with the accused he revealed his identity and confessed about the crime. The 2 C.C.No.484/2024 accused failed to show any voucher or receipt for the possession of above said property. The complainant prepared panchanama and the complainant has seized the above railway property and arrested him under the cover of panchanama and recorded his confession statement in which he admitted his guilt voluntarily. The complainant brought the accused along with seized property to RPF post Secunderabad and registered a case in Crime No.

11/2024 under section 3(a) RP (UP) Act. The complainant released the accused by issuing 41-A Cr.P.C. notice. On 22-06-2024 the complainant received theft memo from Lw4 and On 25-06-2024 the complainant obtained case property certificate from Lw4. On 23-06-2024 the complainant has submitted crime and occurrence report. On 24-06-2024 the complainant has examined and recorded the statement of Lw2 and 26-06-2024 the complainant examined and recorded the statement of Lw3. After completion of the enquiry filed the final complaint.

3)This case was taken on file for the offence under section 3(a) of RP (UP)

Act,1966.

4)After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5)The accused was examined under Section 246 (2) of Cr.PC. by explaining all the incriminating material against him to which the accused denied the allegations. A charge under section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 was framed and explained to the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty.

6)On behalf of the complainant, Asst. Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force,

Secunderabad post was examined as Pw.1 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P7 and Mo.1 are marked.

7)After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence of the witnesses of the complainant to which the accused denied allegations.

However, the accused reported no defence, hence defence evidence is closed.

3 C.C.No.484/2024

8)Heard the arguments of both sides.

9)Now the point for consideration is : “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 beyond reasonable doubt or not?”.

10)POINT:-

Section 3 of RP (UP) Amendment Act, 2012 deals with imposition of penalty for unlawful possession of Railway Property. Section 3 of the RP (UP) Act, 1966 reads as follows:

“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.”

11)A plain reading of the above section shows that whoever is found in possession of Railway property unless he/she proves the railway property fell into his possession lawfully he/she shall be punishable. Thus it shows that if the complainant proves the possession of railway property with the accused, the burden lies on accused to rebut the same.

12)In this case, the prosecution has examined the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Railway

Protection Force, Secunderabad who alleged to have found the accused with possession of railway property as Pw1. Pw1 in his evidence deposed that On 22-06-2024 at about 04:00 PM, the Pw1 along with his staff while on confidential watch at lower yard Secunderabad while he was moving on suspicious manner, the Pw1 immediately secured two mediators i.e., Lws-2 and 3 on the examination of the bag they found 12 Nos. of Push cock

Railway taps valued of Rs.1536/- (appx.) On enquiry with the accused he revealed his identity and confessed about the crime. The accused failed to show any voucher or receipt for the possession of above said property. The

Pw1 prepared panchanama and the Pw1 has seized the above railway 4 C.C.No.484/2024 property and arrested him under the cover of panchanama and recorded his confession statement in which he admitted his guilt voluntarily. The Pw1 brought the accused along with seized property to RPF post Secunderabad and registered a case in Crime No. 11/2024 under section 3(a) RP (UP) Act.

The Pw1 released the accused by issuing 41-A Cr.P.C. notice. On 22-06-2024 the Pw1 received theft memo from Lw4 and On 25-06-2024 the Pw1 obtained case property certificate from Lw4. On 23-06-2024 the Pw1 has submitted crime and occurrence report. On 24-06-2024 the Pw1 has examined and recorded the statement of Lw2 and 26-06-2024 the Pw1 examined and recorded the statement of Lw3. After completion of the enquiry filed the final complaint.

13)A reading of Ex.P1 would show that the accused committed theft of Mo.1 and Case property certificate Ex.P5 would show that Mo.1 is belongs to

Railways.

14)In the cross examination of Pw.1, the only suggestion put to him is that a false case is filed for statistical purpose and that no property was seized from the accused. It is to be noted that Asst. Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection

Force is a public servant and that no motive has been attributed to him to depose falsely against the accused. Apart from that Ex.P5 would prove that the Case property belongs to Railways. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the complainant by examining himself as Pw.1 proved the recovery of Mo.1 which belongs to Railways from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama (Ex.P1). Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the complainant proved the fact of recovery of Mo.1 from the accused.

15)Now it has to be seen whether the accused discharges the burden on him by proving the fact that Mo.1 came into his possession lawfully. The suggestion put to Pw.1, during the course of cross examination is that a false case is filed against the accused and also denied the recovery of Mo.1 from the possession of the accused. Moreover, it is not the case of the accused that

Mo.1 is possession lawfully.

5 C.C.No.484/2024

16)The learned counsel for the accused would contend that other witnesses were not examined and as such benefit of doubt can be given to accused and as observed above, Pw.1 is a public servant and he have no animosity to depose against the accused thus this court does not find any reason for Pw.1 to implicate the accused in a false case and it is already held that the evidence of Pw.1 is quite convincing and reliable in nature, non-examination of other witnesses is not fatal to the case of the complainant. Moreover the learned counsel for the accused could not give any worthfull suggestion to show that the complainant filed a false case against the accused. Further, the accused did not file any cogent evidence on his behalf to support his contention that a false case is filed against him. Thus, the complainant succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 3

(a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 and accordingly he found guilty.

17)Learned Counsel for the accused further contends that the confessional statement of the accused has no evidentiary value as the same was obtained by force. On the other hand, Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that under Railways Act the Railway Protection Force personnel have authority to record the statement of the Accused under Section 180 (B) of the Railways

Act and the same can be relied upon to prove the guilt of accused. This court also relied on the following decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BALKISHAN Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1981 AIR 379). Ex.P2

Wherein it was held that the statement recorded by the officer of Railway

Protection Force is admissible in evidence. Hence, in view of the above said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this court is of the opinion that the complainant by examining himself as Pw1 and also marking Exs.P1 to P7, and Mo.1 could successfully prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts for the offence Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966.

18)In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charge under Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 and he is convicted u/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C.

6 C.C.No.484/2024 Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd Day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

19)When the accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence likely to be imposed on him, he pleaded that he is poor person and his whole family is solely depended on him at present he is unemployed and he further pleaded that this is his first offence.

20)As the offence committed by the accused is not in the interest of public at large as such this court is not inclined to extend the benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

21)This court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for taking a lenient view against the accused while imposing the fine.

22)In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 3(a) of

RP UP Act 1966 and he is convicted u/s.248(2) Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 06 months for the offence U/sec. 3(a) RP (UP) Act.

Mo1 is the case property deposited vide P.I. No. 243/2024 dt. 09-10-2024 shall be return to the concerned party after expiry of appeal time. The bond and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

23)The accused is informed about his right of appeal and the accused is also informed that if he have no means to engage an advocate he can take the services of district legal services authority, Hyderabad for free legal aid.

7 C.C.No.484/2024 Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22ndDay of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

( FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

A P P E N D I X O F E V I D E N C E

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

P ROSECUTION : DEFENCE: PW.1: Sri P.S.V. Prasad None

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Ex.P-1:is Panchanama Ex.P2: is Accused statement, Ex.P3: is the seizure list, Ex.P4: is the Theft Report, Ex.P5: is the Case property certificate, Ex.P6 and 7: are the statements of mediators Lws2 and 3.

MO’s. Marked for:

Mo.1 : is 12 push cock railway taps.Nil

Sd/-

II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD

//True Copy//