M. Pradeep Kumar

1 CC. No. 65 of 2020

Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No. 65 of 2020 on the file of the

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

1. Date of Offence: 19-12-2019

2. Date of report: 19-12-2019

3. Date of arrest of accused: 19-12-2019

4. Date of release on bail: 07-01-2020

5. Date of commencement of trial: 07-04-2021

6. Date of closure of trial: 19-05-2021

7. Date of judgment: 10-06-2021

8. Complainant: CH. Prasad, Asst. Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Ongole.

9. Accused :Maloth Nagesh, S/o Late Chinna, Aged 21 years, R/o H. No. : Nil, Badi Thanda, Kesamudram Village, Mahabubabad District. Telangana State. Presently Residing at 2nd Lane, Gandhi Nagar, Ongole, Prakasam District.

10. Offence : U/Sec.3(a) of RP(UP) Act.

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court: Found guilty

13. Sentence or Order: In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and accordingly, the accused is convicted u/ sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Thereby, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) for the offence punishable u/sec 2 CC. No. 65 of 2020 3(a) of RP(UP) Act, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. M.O.1 shall be returned to the Railway Authorities after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. Free copy of Judgment is furnished to the accused.

This Court informed the accused about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment, the accused submitted that he has no means to engage an Advocate to prefer an appeal and he submitted that he will not prefer an appeal.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file against accused for the offence Under section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act on 18-03-2020 as a C.C. No.

65/2020 by this Court. On 24-03-2021, copies of all documents were furnished to accused U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 07-04-2021, PW1 was examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and M.O.1 and M.O.2. On 12-04-2021, accused was examined U/sec. 246, Cr.P.C and Charge was framed for the offence punishable u/s. 3(a) of RP(UP) Act against the accused, its contents were explained to him in Telugu language for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 19-05-2021, the learned APP reported no further evidence and the Prosecution Evidence was closed. On 26-05-2019, the accused was examined u/sec 313, Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied and reported no Defence Evidence and on 09-06-2021, heard both sides arguments through online over Bluejeans App and on 10-06-2021,

Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The Hon’ble Secretary, DLSA, Nellore.

// True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

3 CC. No. 65 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

RAILWAYS, NELLORE

Present:- Sri M. Pradeep Kumar, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Nellore.

Thursday, the 10th day of June, 2021.

CC. No. 65/2020

CH. Prasad, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Ongole.. . . Complainant ..Vs..

Maloth Nagesh, S/o Late Chinna, Aged 21 years, R/o H. No. : Nil, Badi Thanda, Kesamudram Village, Mahabubabad District. Telangana State. Presently Residing at 2nd Lane, Gandhi Nagar, Ongole, Prakasam District.. . .Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 09-06-2021 in the presence of learned APP for complainant and in the presence of Sri Vada Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the accused and the matter having been stood for consideration this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Ongole filed complaint against the accused in Cr. No. 19/2019 for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

1. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that

On 19-12-2019 at about 06.30am, the complainant CH. Prasad (LW1) along with SK. Saleem, Constable, Railway Protection Force, Ongole (LW2) while on confidential watch at KM No. 288/20, located near south side of Ongole Railway Station, apprehended the accused while he was on suspicious manner with a polythene bag which is weighing. Then the 4 CC. No. 65 of 2020 complainant secured the mediators and checked the polythene bag in the presence of the mediators and found 02 Fish Plates in that bag. On questioning about the Railway material, the accused failed to show any authority or receipt for having the same lawfully rather he admitted that he has committed the theft of the 02 Fish Plates from a place at KM No. 287/25- 27, located beside downline railway track on the south side of Ongole

Railway Station with an intention to sell the same and in the meantime, they caught him. The complainant recorded the confessional statement of the accused and arrested the accused under cover of Panchanama and seized the Railway property i.e., 02 Fish Plates duly preparing the seizure list. The value of property is Rs. 2,000/-.

The complainant further alleged that he registered a case in Cr.

No. 19/2019 u/sec 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and took up enquiries. On 19-12-2019, the accused person was produced

before this Court. During the course of enquiry, on 19-12-2019, the

complainant received a theft report from B. Subbaramaiah, SSE, P.Way,

Ongole (LW5). On 18-01-2020, the complainant produced the seized case property i.e., 02 Fish Plates before Sri B. Subbaramaiah, SSE, P.Way, Ongole (LW5). The SSE, Permanent Way examined carefully and issued case property certificate in which he opined that the seized property belongs to

Indian Railway and used by the Engineering Department in Indian Railways utilized for Railway track fastening not available in open market and the property are in serviceable condition. On 15-02-2020, the complainant examined and recorded the statements of mediators. Hence, the complaint.

2.This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents were furnished to him. The accused was examined under Section 246 of Cr.P.C. for the alleged offence after 5 CC. No. 65 of 2020 dispensing with the enquiry under section 244 of Cr.P.C, on the memo filed by the learned Assistant Public prosecutor as the record available discloses that there is a prima facie case against the accused for the alleged offence.

The accused pleaded not guilty of the offence. After hearing both sides, charge u/sec 3(a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 was framed against the accused, read over and explained the same to him in Telugu language. He pleaded not guilty of the said charge and claimed to be tried.

3.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution cited 6 list of witnesses. The prosecution has examined CH. Prasad, Assistant Sub-

Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Ongole (LW1) as PW1 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 and evidence of witnesses SK. Saleem (LW2), M. Babu Rao (LW3), Palaparthi Das (LW4), B. Subbaramaiah (LW5) and Jattula Nagendra (LW6) were given up by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor.

4.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec 313, Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material to him in Telugu language for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

5.Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for Railway

Protection Force and also the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the record including oral and documentary evidence.

6.Now the point for determination in this case:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused

for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 beyond reasonable doubt ?

6 CC. No. 65 of 2020

7.It is the case of prosecution that on 19-12-2019 at about 06.30am, at KM No. 288/20, near south side of Ongole Railway Station, accused was found in unlawful possession of Railway Property i.e., M.O.1 02

Fish Plates without any valid receipt or voucher and thereby, he committed an offence punishable u/sec 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act. The case of the accused is totally denial of the case of the prosecution.

According to Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful

Possession) Act, 1966 read as follows:-

3 Penalty for unlawful possession of Railway property:-

Whoever is found or is proved to have been, in possession of any railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawful obtained shall, unless he proves that the Railway property came into his possession lawfully, be punishable:-

a) for the first offece 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 shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees.

b) 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 special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the Judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than two years and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees.

8.To make out an offence under Sec. 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, the prosecution has got to prove 1) that the property seized from the accused is Railway property, 2) that the accused has been in possession of the railway property, 3) that the said Railway property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained and 4) The accused has been convicted for the offence u/sec 3(a) of

R.P. (U.P) Act, 1966.

9.In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution cited 6 list of witnesses. Out of them, the prosecution examined

PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11 documents and M.O.1 and M.O.2. PW1 7 CC. No. 65 of 2020 CH. Prasad, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Ongole is the complainant. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of SK. Saleem (LW2), M. Babu Rao (LW3), Palaparthi Das (LW4), B. Subbaramaiah (LW5) and Jattula Nagendra (LW6).

10.The evidence of PW1 CH. Prasad, Assistant Sub-Inspector,

Railway Protection Force, Ongole is that on 19-12-2019 at about 06.30am, he along with his staff SK. Saleem, Constable, RPF, Ongole (LW2) while on confidential watch at KM. No. 288/20, near south side of Ongole Railway

Station, found one person and 02 Fish Plates and secured M. Babu Rao (LW3) and Palaparthi Das (LW4) as mediators. He examined accused in the presence of M. Babu Rao (LW3) and Palaparthi Das (LW4) and on verification, found 02 Fish Plates valued Rs. 2,000/- which are Railway property in the possession of accused. He obtained identity particulars of accused. Accused failed to produce any bills or receipts for the said property. On enquiry, accused confessed that he collected the said polythene bag containing 02

Fish Plates from a place at KM No. 287/25-27, located beside downline railway track on the south side of Ongole Railway station with an intention to sell them on profit. There, he prepared the panchanama and seized 02 Fish

Plates valued Rs. 2,000/- in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama and went to that place and prepared observation report and brought accused to the station along with case property and recorded the statement of accused.

11.It is also evident from the evidence of PW1 that immediately he registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 19 of 2019 for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act.

He sent accused for medical examination and after completing necessary formalities, he produced accused before this Court for judicial remand to 8 CC. No. 65 of 2020 conduct further investigation. He recorded the statement of accused. On 19-12-2019, he received theft complaint from B. Subbaramaiah, SSE, P.Way,

Ongole (LW5). On 18-01-2020, he visited the RPF office and certified that material belongs to Railway. He obtained case property certificate from B.

Subbramaiah, SSE, P.Way, Ongole (LW5) on 18-01-2020. He recorded the statements of mediators M. Babu Rao (LW3) and P. Das (LW4) and after completion of inquiry, he filed final complaint before this Court.

12.In the cross-examination of PW1 by the learned counsel for the accused, the learned defence counsel did not elicit anything except formal suggestions and nothing was elicited against the prosecution witnesses.

The contents in Ex.P5 confessional statement of accused made before PW1 would go to show that accused has committed the theft of Railway property on 19-12-2019 at about 06.30am KM No. 287/25-27, located beside downline railway track on the south side of Ongole Railway station and found 02 Fish

Plates and the same was seized from his possession unlawfully at KM No.

288/20 located near south side of Ongole Railway Station.

13.There is no contra evidence let in improbable the case of the prosecution, showing that seized property will be available in open market going through the evidence of PW1, the learned Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of SK. Saleem (LW2), M. Babu Rao (LW3), Palaparthi Das (LW4),

B. Subbaramaiah (LW5) and Jattula Nagendra (LW6). The learned A.P.P argued that evidence of PW1 is consistent, cogent in all material aspects, more over M.O.1 belongs to Railway Department, proved beyond reasonable doubt. Seized Property is railway property proved beyond all reasonable doubt and accused failed to explain his possession of railway property without any authorities, only argued that police implicated him falsely and there is no force in the contention raised by legal aid counsel.

9 CC. No. 65 of 2020

14.The Hon’ble Apex Court in BalaKrishna A. Devidayal Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 1980 Crl.L.J. 1424, it was held as follows:- “An officer of the RPF conducting an enquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act has not been invested with all the powers of an officer-in- charge of a police station making an investigation under chapter XIV of the code. Particularly, he has no power to initiate prosecution by filing a charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned under section 173 of the code, which has been held to be the clinching attribute of an investigating police officer”.

Thus, judged by the test laid down in Badku Jyoti Savant’s case, which has been consistently adopted in the subsequent decisions noticed above.

Inspector, Kakade of the RPF could not be deemed to be a ‘police officer’ within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, any confessional or incriminating statement recorded by him in the Course of an inquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be excluded from evidence under the said section”.

15.In the light of the above decision, the confessional statement of the accused marked as Ex.P5 is admissible in evidence. The confessional statement of the accused coupled with the evidence of PW1, Ex.P2

Panchanama and Ex.P3 seizure list clearly established the fact that M.O.1 02

Fish Plates have been recovered from the possession of the accused. So an inference can be drawn that the statement of the accused is made voluntarily.

16.As per section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act, a man who is in the possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. But there was no explanation rendered by the accused for such possession.

10 CC. No. 65 of 2020

17.The evidence on record inspires the confidence of the Court to believe the same. Basing on the evidence on record and as seen from the

Ex.P7, M.O.1 belongs to Indian Railways, in the light of the above decision, this Court is of opinion that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act.

Therefore, I hold that the complainant has proved its case against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful

Possession) Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

18.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and accordingly, the accused is convicted u/sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, typed by him directly on

computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 10th day of June, 2021.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

For Railways, Nellore.

When the accused is heard on the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him, he pleaded mercy. He submitted that he is the only bread winner of his family and his entire family is depended upon him. Hence, he requested the Court to take lenient view in sentencing him and release him by treating the remand period already undergone by him as sentence in this case. The learned counsel for the accused also submitted that the accused is not involved in a case of this nature previously and therefore, a lenient view may be taken in sentencing him. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor of

Railway Protection Force has submitted that the accused is not involved in any other offence and this is the first offence committed by him.

11 CC. No. 65 of 2020 The offence under section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 is punishable for 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 shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees.

The property involved in this case is worth Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees

Two Thousands only). The learned counsel for accused has submitted that the accused is not involved in any other cases and that he is not convicted by any other court previously. As the offence committed by the accused is in respect of the Railway property, I feel that it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

Considering the submissions of the accused and his counsel and also the learned Public Prosecutor, keeping in view the value of the property involved in this case, I am inclined to take a lenient view in sentencing the accused.

Thereby, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) for the offence punishable u/sec 3(a) of RP(UP) Act, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. M.O.1 shall be returned to the Railway Authorities after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. Free copy of Judgment is furnished to the accused.

This Court informed the accused about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment, the accused submitted that he has no means 12 CC. No. 65 of 2020 to engage an Advocate to prefer an appeal and he submitted that he will not prefer an appeal.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, typed by him directly on

computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 10th day of June, 2021.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

For Railways, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined:

For Complainant: For Accused:

PW1: CH. Prasad.None.

Exhibits Marked:

For Complainant: For Accused:

Ex.P1: Occurrence Report.Nil. Ex.P2: Mediators Report. Ex.P3: Seizure List. Ex.P4: Observation Report. Ex.P5: Confession Statement of Accused. Ex.P6: Theft Report. Ex.P7: Case Property Certificate. Ex.P8: Statement of M. Babu Rao (LW3). Ex.P9: Statement of P. Das (LW4). Ex.P10: Statement of J. Nagendra (LW6). Ex.P11: Statement of SK. Saleem (LW2).

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1: 02 Fish Plates. M.O.2: One Polythene Bag.

Id/- M.P.K. Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

For Railways, Nellore.

// True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

1 CC. No. 52 of 2021

Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No. 52 of 2021 on the file of the

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

1. Date of Offence: 27-01-2021

2. Date of report: 27-01-2021

3. Date of arrest of accused: 27-01-2021

4. Date of release on bail: 05-03-2021

5. Date of commencement of trial: 24-03-2021

6. Date of closure of trial: 19-05-2021

7. Date of judgment: 10-06-2021

8. Complainant: M. Sandeep Kumar, Post Commander, Railway Protection Force, Gudur.

9. Accused :D. Murugesh, S/o Devaraj, Aged 26 years, R/o Thamjamkotam Village, Kuppam, Chittoor District.

10. Offence : U/Sec. 3(a) of RP(UP) Act.

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court: Found guilty

13. Sentence or Order: In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and accordingly, the accused is convicted u/ sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Thereby, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) for the offence punishable u/sec 3(a) of RP(UP) Act, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. M.O.1 shall be returned to the Railway Authorities after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 shall be destroyed 2 CC. No. 52 of 2021 after the expiry of appeal time. Free copy of Judgment is furnished to the accused.

This Court informed the accused about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment, the accused submitted that he has no means to engage an Advocate to prefer an appeal and he submitted that he will not prefer an appeal.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file against accused for the offence Under section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act on 25-02-2021 as a C.C. No.

52/2021 by this Court. On 10-03-2021, copies of all documents were furnished to accused U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 24-03-2021, PW1 and PW2 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11, M.O.1 and M.O.2. On 15-04- 2021, accused was examined U/sec. 246, Cr.P.C and Charge was framed for the offence punishable u/s. 3(a) of RP(UP) Act against the accused, its contents were explained to him in Telugu language for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 19-05-2021, the learned APP reported no further evidence and prosecution evidence was closed. On 26- 05-2021, the accused was examined u/sec 313, Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied and reported no Defence Evidence and on 09-06-2021, heard both sides arguments and on 10-06-2021, Judgment pronounced.

Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The Hon’ble Secretary, DLSA, Nellore.

// True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

3 CC. No. 52 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

RAILWAYS, NELLORE

Present:- Sri M. Pradeep Kumar, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Nellore.

Thursday, the 10th day of June, 2021.

CC. No. 52/2021

M. Sandeep Kumar, Post Commander, Railway Protection Force, Gudur.. . . Complainant ..Vs..

D. Murugesh, S/o Devaraj, Aged 26 years, R/o Thamjamkotam Village, Kuppam, Chittoor District.. . .Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 09-06-2021 in the presence of learned APP for complainant and in the presence of Sri Vada Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the accused and the matter having been stood for consideration this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The Post Commander, Railway Protection Force, Gudur filed complaint against the accused in Cr. No. 01/2021 for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

1. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that :

On 27-01-2021 at about 09.30am, S. Leela Krishna, Sub-

Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Gudur (LW1) along with his staff G.

Chandra Shekar, Head Constable, Railway Protection Force, Gudur (LW6) and

B. Rama Krishna, Constable, Railway Protection Force, Gudur while on confidential watch at KM No. 134/11-12 located at Gudur Cheruvu downline, apprehended the accused while he was on suspicious manner with a polythene bag. Then the complainant secured the mediators and checked the polythene bag in the presence of the mediators and found 03 Fish Plates 4 CC. No. 52 of 2021 in that bag. On questioning about the Railway material, the accused failed to show any authority or receipt for having the same lawfully rather he admitted that he has committed the theft of the 03 Fish Plates at that place with an intention to sell the same to iron shop and in the meantime, they caught him. The complainant recorded the confessional statement of the accused and arrested the accused under cover of Panchanama and seized the Railway property i.e., 03 Fish Plates duly preparing the seizure list. The value of property is Rs. 1,500/-.

The complainant further alleged that he registered a case in Cr.

No. 01/2021 u/sec 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and took up enquiries. On 27-01-2021, the accused person was produced

before this Court. During the course of enquiry, on 29-01-2021, the

complainant received a theft report from S. Karthik, SSE, P. Way, Gudur (LW3). On 29-01-2021, the complainant produced the seized case property i.e., 03 Fish Plates before S. Karthik, SSE, P. Way, Gudur (LW3). S. Karthik,

SSE, P. Way, Gudur (LW3) examined carefully and issued case property certificate in which he opined that the seized property belongs to Indian

Railway and used by the Engineering Department in Indian Railways utilized for Railway track fastening not available in open market and the property are in serviceable condition. On 04-02-2021, the complainant examined and recorded the statements of mediators. Hence, the complaint.

2.This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents were furnished to him. The accused was examined under Section 246 of Cr.P.C. for the alleged offence after dispensing with the enquiry under section 244 of Cr.P.C, on the memo filed by the learned Assistant Public prosecutor as the record available discloses that there is a prima facie case against the accused for the alleged offence.

5 CC. No. 52 of 2021 The accused pleaded not guilty of the offence. After hearing both sides, charge u/sec 3(a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 was framed against the accused, read over and explained the same to him in Telugu language. He pleaded not guilty of the said charge and claimed to be tried.

3.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution cited 6 list of witnesses. The prosecution has examined S. Leela Krishna, Sub – Inspector,

Railway Protection Force, Gudur (LW1) and M. Sandeep Kumar, Post

Commander, Railway Protection Force, Gudur (LW2) as PW1 and PW2 respectively and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 and evidence of witnesses S. Karthik (LW3), K. Giri Prasad (LW4), M. Neelakantam (LW5) and G. Chandra Shekaran (LW6) were given up by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec 313, Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material to him in Telugu language for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

5.Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for Railway

Protection Force and also the learned counsel for the accused through online over Bluejeans App. Perused the record including oral and documentary evidence.

6.Now the point for determination in this case:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 beyond reasonable doubt ?

6 CC. No. 52 of 2021

7.It is the case of prosecution that on 27-01-2021 at about 09.30am, at KM No. 134/11-12 located at Gudur Cheruvu downline, accused was found in unlawful possession of Railway Property i.e., M.O.1 03 Fish

Plates without any valid receipt or voucher and thereby, he committed an offence punishable u/sec 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act. The case of the accused is totally denial of the case of the prosecution.

According to Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful

Possession) Act, 1966 read as follows:-

3 Penalty for unlawful possession of Railway property:-

Whoever is found or is proved to have been, in possession of any railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawful obtained shall, unless he proves that the Railway property came into his possession lawfully, be punishable:-

a) for the first offece 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 shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees.

b) 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 special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the Judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than two years and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees.

8.To make out an offence under Sec. 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, the prosecution has got to prove 1) that the property seized from the accused is Railway property, 2) that the accused has been in possession of the railway property, 3) that the said Railway property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained and 4) The accused has been convicted for the offence u/sec 3(a) of

R.P. (U.P) Act, 1966.

9.In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution cited 6 list of witnesses. Out of them, the prosecution examined

PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11 documents and M.O.1 and M.O.2.

7 CC. No. 52 of 2021 PW1 S. Leela Krishna is the Sub – Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Gudur.

PW2 M. Sandeep Kumar, Post Commander, Railway Protection Force, Gudur is the Complainant. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of S.

Karthik (LW3), K. Giri Prasad (LW4), M. Neelakantam (LW5) and G. Chandra

Shekaran (LW6).

10.The evidence of PW1 S. Leela Krishna, Sub – Inspector, Railway

Protection Force, Gudur is that on 27-01-2021 at about 09.30am, he along with his staff G. Chandra Shekaran, Head Constable, Railway Protection

Force, Gudur (LW6) and B. Rama Krishna, Constable, RPF, Gudur while on confidential watch at KM No. 134/11-12 located at Gudur Cheruvu downline, found one person and 03 Fish Plates and secured K. Giri Prasad (LW4) and M.

Neelakantam (LW5) as mediators. He examined accused in the presence of

K. Giri Prasad (LW4) and M. Neelakantam (LW5) and on verification, found 03

Fish Plates valued Rs. 1,500/- which are Railway property in the possession of accused. He obtained identity particulars of accused. Accused failed to produce any bills or receipts for the said property. On enquiry, accused confessed that he collected the said polythene bag containing 03 Fish Plates at that place only with an intention to sell them on profit. They prepared the panchanama and seized 1 Polythene bag containing 03 Fish Plates valued

Rs. 1,500/- in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama and brought accused to the station along with case property and recorded the statement of accused.

11.It is also evident from the evidence of PW1 that immediately he registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 01 of 2021 for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act.

He sent accused for medical examination and after completing necessary formalities, he produced accused before this Court for judicial remand to 8 CC. No. 52 of 2021 conduct further investigation. He recorded the statement of accused and handed over file to PW2 for further investigation. PW2 deposed before this

Court in his chief examination that on 29-01-2021, he received theft complaint from S. Karthik, SSE, P.Way, Gudur (LW3). He obtained case property certificate from S. Karthik, SSE, P.Way, Gudur (LW3) on 29-01-2021.

He recorded the statements of mediators K. Giri Prasad (LW4) and M.

Neelakantam (LW5) and S. Karthik (LW3) and G. Chandra Shekaran (LW6) and after completion of inquiry, he filed final complaint before this Court.

12.In the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 by the learned counsel

for the accused, the learned defence counsel did not elicit anything except

formal suggestions and nothing was elicited against the prosecution witnesses. The contents in Ex.P4 confessional statement of accused made

before PW1 would go to show that accused has committed the theft of

Railway property on 27-01-2021 at about 09.30am at KM No. 134/11-12 located at Gudur Cheruvu downline and found 03 Fish Plates from his possession unlawfully.

13.There is no contra evidence let in improbable the case of the prosecution, showing that seized property will be available in open market going through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the learned Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of S. Karthik (LW3), K. Giri Prasad (LW4), M.

Neelakantam (LW5) and G. Chandra Shekaran (LW6). The learned A.P.P argued that evidence of PW1 and PW2 is consistent, cogent in all material aspects, more over M.O.1 belongs to Railway Department, proved beyond reasonable doubt. Seized Property is railway property proved beyond all reasonable doubt and accused failed to explain his possession of railway property without any authorities, only argued that police implicated him falsely there is no force in the contention raised by legal aid counsel.

9 CC. No. 52 of 2021

14.The Hon’ble Apex Court in BalaKrishna A. Devidayal Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 1980 Crl.L.J. 1424, it was held as follows:- “An officer of the RPF conducting an enquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act has not been invested with all the powers of an officer-in- charge of a police station making an investigation under chapter XIV of the code. Particularly, he has no power to initiate prosecution by filing a charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned under section 173 of the code, which has been held to be the clinching attribute of an investigating police officer”.

Thus, judged by the test laid down in Badku Jyoti Savant’s case, which has been consistently adopted in the subsequent decisions noticed above.

Inspector, Kakade of the RPF could not be deemed to be a ‘police officer’ within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, any confessional or incriminating statement recorded by him in the Course of an inquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be excluded from evidence under the said section”.

15.In the light of the above decision, the confessional statement of the accused marked as Ex.P4 is admissible in evidence. The confessional statement of the accused coupled with the evidence of PW1, Ex.P2

Panchanama and Ex.P3 seizure list clearly established the fact that M.O.1 03

Fish Plates have been recovered from the possession of the accused. So an inference can be drawn that the statement of the accused is made voluntarily.

16.As per section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act, a man who is in the possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stollen, unless he can account for his possession. But there was no explanation rendered by the accused for such possession.

10 CC. No. 52 of 2021

17.The evidence on record inspires the confidence of the Court to believe the same. Basing on the evidence on record and as seen from the

Ex.P7, M.O.1 belongs to Indian Railways, in the light of the above decision, this Court is of opinion that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act.

Therefore, I hold that the complainant has proved its case against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful

Possession) Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

18.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and accordingly, the accused is convicted u/sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, typed by him directly on

computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 10th day of June, 2021.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

For Railways, Nellore.

When the accused is heard on the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him, he pleaded mercy. He submitted that he is the only bread winner of his family and his entire family is depended upon him and he is not even in a position to furnish solvencies even a bail is granted to him. Hence, he requested the Court to take lenient view in sentencing him and release him by treating the remand period already undergone by him as sentence in this case. The learned counsel for the accused also submitted that the accused is not involved in a case of this nature previously and therefore, a lenient view may be taken in sentencing him.

11 CC. No. 52 of 2021 The offence under section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 is punishable for 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 shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees.

The property involved in this case is worth Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees

One Thousand Five Hundred only). The learned counsel for accused has submitted that the accused is not involved in any other cases and that he is not convicted by any other court previously. As the offence committed by the accused is in respect of the Railway property, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

Considering the submissions of the accused and his counsel and keeping in view the value of the property involved in this case, I am inclined to take a lenient view in sentencing the accused.

Thereby, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) for the offence punishable u/sec 3(a) of RP(UP) Act, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. M.O.1 shall be returned to the Railway Authorities after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. Free copy of Judgment is furnished to the accused.

This Court informed the accused about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment, the accused submitted that he has no means 12 CC. No. 52 of 2021 to engage an Advocate to prefer an appeal and he submitted that he will not prefer an appeal.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, typed by him directly on

computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 10th day of June, 2021.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

For Railways, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses Examined:

For Complainant: For Accused:

PW1: S. Leela Krishna.None. PW2: M. Sandeep Kumar.

Exhibits Marked:

For Complainant: For Accused:

Ex.P1: Occurrence Report.Nil. Ex.P2: Mediators Report. Ex.P3: Seizure List. Ex.P4: Confession Statement of Accused. Ex.P5: Theft Report. Ex.P6: Letter dated 29-01-2021. Ex.P7: Case Property Certificate. Ex.P8: Statement of S. Karthik (LW.3). Ex.P9: Statement of Giri Prasad (LW.4). Ex.P10: Statement of Neelakantam (LW.5). Ex.P11: Statement of G. Chandra Shekaran (LW.6).

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1: 03 Fish Plates. M.O.2: One Polythene Bag.

Id/- M.P.K. Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

For Railways, Nellore.

// True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

1 C.C. No. 39 of 2020

Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No. 39 of 2020 on the file of the

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

1.Date of Offence: 26-09-2019

2.Date of report: 26-09-2019

3.Date of arrest of accused: --

4.Date of release on bail: --

5.Date of commencement of trial: 25-02-2020

6.Date of closure of trial: 22-04-2021

7. Date of judgment: 05-05-2021

8. Complainant: The State represented by Y. Jagadeesh, Asst. Sub-Inspector of RPF, Renigunta Post.

9. Accused: N. Purushotham, S/o N. Muniraja, aged 31 years, R/o D. No. 10-115, Padmashalipeta, Srikalahasthi Town, Chittoor District.

10. Offence : U/Sec. 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court: Found guilty

13. Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly, the accused is convicted u/sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Thereby, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousands only) for the offence punishable u/sec. 143(1)(a) of

Railways Act, 1989, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

The accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and on enquiry, the accused stated that he has got sufficient 2 C.C. No. 39 of 2020 means to engage the counsel. No property order is passed as there is no property in this case.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file against accused for the offence Under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989 as a C.C. No.

39/2020 by this Court on 25-02-2020. On 10-02-2021, copies of all documents are furnished to accused U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 25-02-2021, PW1 was examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On 01-03-2021, the accused was examined U/sec. 246, Cr.P.C and charge u/sec. 143(1)(a) of Railways

Act, 1989 was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 08-04-2021, PW2 was present and was examined. On 22-04-2021, the learned APP reported no further evidence and the Prosecution Evidence was closed. On 26-04-2021, accused was examined u/sec 313, Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied and reported no Defence Evidence and on 29-04-2021, heard the arguments of both parties and on 05-05-2021, Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

for Railways, Nellore.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The Hon’ble Secretary, DLSA, Nellore.

// True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

3 C.C. No. 39 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

RAILWAYS, NELLORE

Present:- Sri. M. Pradeep Kumar, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Nellore.

Wednesday, the 05th day of May, 2021.

CC. No. 39/2020

The State represented by Y. Jagadeesh, Asst. Sub-Inspector of RPF, Renigunta Post.. . .Complainant ..Vs..

N. Purushotham, S/o N. Muniraja, aged 31 years, R/o D. No. 10-115, Padmashalipeta, Srikalahasthi Town, Chittoor District.. . .Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 29-04-2021 in the presence of learned APP for complainant and Sri Vada Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the accused through Bluejeans App and the matter having been stood for consideration this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The complainant / Asst. Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force,

Renigunta filed complaint against the accused in Cr. No. 984/2019 for the offence punishable under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989.

1. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that on confidential watch on 26-09-2019 at about 09.10am, the complainant Y. Jagadeesh (LW1) along with his staff S.B. Srihari, ASI, Railway Protection Force, Srikalahasthi (LW8), K. Koteswara Rao, ASI, CIB, Renigunta (LW7), C.C. Obul Reddy,

Constable, Railway Protection Force, Renigunta (LW9) and M. Nagaraja Rao,

Constable, Railway Protection Force, Renigunta (LW10) went to the shop Sri 4 C.C. No. 39 of 2020 Lalitha Travels, D. No. 3/1037, Sadasiva Towers, Shop No. 10, Srikalahasthi

Town, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh State and found accused selling the

Railway e-tickets to the passengers on receiving commission and seized the material involved for selling the e-tickets in the presence of mediators and recorded confession statement of accused. Hence, the complaint.

2. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/sec.

143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989 against the accused. Case copies were furnished to the accused u/sec. 207, Cr.P.C.

3. Accused was examined u/sec 246, Cr.P.C. and charge was framed for the offence punishable u/sec. 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989, its contents were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of prosecution, PW1 and PW2 were examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 were marked.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec. 313, Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witness was explained to him in Telugu language, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

6.Heard both sides arguments over video linkage i.e., Bluejeans

App.

5 C.C. No. 39 of 2020

7.Now the point for determination in this case:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for

the offence punishable under section 143(1)(a) of Railways

Act, 1989 beyond reasonable doubt ?

8.The learned A.P.P argued before this Court that the acts of accused are clearly established with the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is completely corroborated to the prosecution case. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

The learned defence counsel argued before this Court that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that PW1 foisted this false case only for statistical purpose. He further argued that PW2 is a planted witness. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

9.Perused the record. Out of 10 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined only two list of witnesses. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of N. Yoganand (LW3), V. Venkatamuni (LW4), G. Subbarayalu (LW5), Manager (LW6), K. Koteswara Rao (LW7), S.B. Srihari (LW8), C.C. Obul

Reddy (LW9) and M. Nagaraja Rao (LW10). PW1 is the Asst. Sub-Inspector of

RPF and is the person who initiated this case and is the complainant. PW2 is the mediator.

10.As this is a case under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was selling the Railway e- tickets to the passengers on commission basis.

11.PW1 who is Assistant Sub-Inspector, RPF, deposed before this

Court in his chief examination that on 26-09-2019 at about 09.10am, on 6 C.C. No. 39 of 2020 receiving credible information, he along with his staff S.B. Srihari, ASI, RPF,

Srikalahasthi (LW8), K. Koteswara Rao, ASI, CIB, Renigunta (LW7), C.C. Obul

Reddy, Constable, RPF, Renigunta (LW9) and M. Naga Raja Rao, Constable,

RPF, CIB, Renigunta (LW10) proceeded to a shop Sri Lalitha Travels, Door No.

3/1037, Sadasiva Towers, Shop No. 10, Srikalahasthi town, Chittoor district and at that place, he secured the presence of PW2 and N. Yoganand (LW3) as mediators and he along with said mediators went into the said shop and he found the accused in the said shop and he was operating the computer and he enquired the accused in the presence of said mediators and the accused confessed to him that he was doing selling of Railway e-tickets on commission basis of Rs. 100/- per ticket and he opened the computer and he found 25 live e-tickets and 14 sheets of screen shots relating to booking history for non live Railway e-tickets and he found 06 user Ids and he took the print outs of computer screen shots and used e-tickets and he seized the said 25 live e-tickets, screen shots and used e-tickets from the possession of the accused in the presence of said mediators and he questioned the accused about his IRCTC authorisation and the accused stated him that he has no IRCTC authorisation and the accused further confessed to him that he has bank account and he was booking the railway e-tickets through his bank account and the accused further confessed that he was running the said shop on rent and one G. Subbarayalu (LW5) was the shop building owner and he was paying Rs. 3,000/- per month to him towards rent and he prepared mediators report at that place in the presence of said mediators and he recorded the confession statement of the accused and they returned to their station along with the accused and the seized property and he registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 984 of 2019 for the offence punishable under sec.

143(1)(a) of Railways Act and he released the accused as he furnished 7 C.C. No. 39 of 2020 sufficient sureties and on the same day, he addressed a letter to CRI,

Tirupathi to block the said 25 live e-tickets and on 03-11-2019, he recorded the statements of said mediators and on 18-11-2019, he recorded the statement of G. Subbarayalu (LW5) and on the same day, he obtained the bank account statement of the accused bank account from SBI, Srikalahasthi and on 25-11-2019, he recorded the statements of K. Koteswara Rao (LW7) and M. Naga Raja Rao (LW10) and on 28-11-2019, he recorded the statements of Srihari (LW8) and Obul Reddy (LW9) and on 01-12-2019, he recorded the statement of the passenger by name V. Venkatamuni (LW4) and on 04-10-2019, he addressed a letter to GGM, Secunderabad for authorisation particulars of the accused and on 08-01-2020, he filed final complaint before this court and on 20-04-2020, he obtained IRCTC authorisation particulars from Secunderabad and he submitted the same

before this court on 17-08-2020. PW1 denied the suggestions put by the

learned defence counsel in his cross examination that the accused never run a shop and the accused never sold Railway e-tickets and he falsely implicated the accused in this case for statistical purpose and the accused is no way related to this case and he prepared all the material in their station and the mediators are their stock witnesses.

12. In support of the evidence of PW1, the prosecution got examined one of the mediators as PW2. PW2 deposed before this court in his chief examination in similar lines that on 26-09-2019 at about 09.15am, he along with Yoganand (LW3) went to shopping in a market in Srikalahasthi town and at that place, the ASI of RPF came to them and requested them to act as mediators and they accepted the same and they saw the accused and the RPF police enquired the accused and the accused confessed to the RPF 8 C.C. No. 39 of 2020 police that he was taking commission of Rs. 100/- per ticket and he was issuing Railway e-tickets to the needy people and the accused further confessed that he was booking Railway e-tickets from his computer and the

RPF police seized 25 live Railway e-tickets from the possession of the accused in his presence and prepared mediators report (Ex.P1) and the RPF police recorded the confession statement (Ex.P2) of the accused and the RPF police recorded his statement (Ex.P7) and he affixed his signatures on Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and the signatures shown to him on Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are his signatures. PW2 denied the suggestions put by the learned defence counsel in his cross examination that he did not go to the alleged place and he did not see anything and the Inspector of RPF did not seize the Railway e-tickets from the possession of the accused in their presence and the accused did not confess to the Inspector of RPF as alleged and he is deposing false as per the instructions given to him by the RPF police.

13.This court observed that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly speaks that they went to the shop of the accused and PW1 secured mediators and seized Railway e-tickets and screen shots of computer from the accused shop as accused was selling Railway e-tickets on commission basis. Moreover, this Court observed that Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in BalaKrishna A. Devidayal Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 1980

Crl.L.J. 1424, it was held as follows:- “An officer of the RPF conducting an enquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act has not been invested with all the powers of an officer-in- charge of a police station making an investigation under chapter XIV of the code. Particularly, he has no power to initiate prosecution by filing a charge 9 C.C. No. 39 of 2020 sheet before the Magistrate concerned under section 173 of the code, which has been held to be the clinching attribute of an investigating police officer”.

Thus, judged by the test laid down in Badku Jyoti Savant’s case, which has been consistently adopted in the subsequent decisions noticed above.

Inspector, Kakade of the RPF could not be deemed to be a ‘police officer’ within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, any confessional or incriminating statement recorded by him in the Course of an inquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be excluded from evidence under the said section”.

14.Hence, according to the above decision, this Court clearly opined that the RPF Police will not come under the definition of Police Officer and the evidence of RPF Police is reliable and is admissible. Moreover, the defence counsel arguments is that PW1 has foisted this false case against the Accused only for statistical purpose, but the learned defence counsel could not establish the same. Moreover, this court observed that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is very much corroborated to each other. Hence, by combining the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P16, this Court clearly believed that the accused was selling the Railway e-tickets to the passengers on commission basis.

15.From the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly, the accused is convicted u/sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

10 C.C. No. 39 of 2020 Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 05th day of May, 2021.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

For Railways, Nellore.

When the accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, the accused stated that his entire family is depending on him and he has to look after their welfare and pleaded mercy and requested this

Court to take lenient view. As the offence is relating to booking of e-tickets by using personal IDs by the accused, this court is of the opinion that it is not fit case to apply the provisions of Prohibition of Offenders Act and Sec. 360 of

Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court did not apply the Provisions of P.O. Act. However, in view of the mercy pleaded by the accused and in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court opined that sentencing the accused as follows will meet the ends of justice.

Thereby, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousands only) for the offence punishable u/sec. 143(1)(a) of

Railways Act, 1989, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

The accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and on enquiry, the accused stated that he has got sufficient means to engage the counsel. No property order is passed as there is no property in this case.

Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 05th day of May, 2021.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

for Railways, Nellore.

11 C.C. No. 39 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined:

For Complainant: For Accused:

PW1: Y. Jagadeesh.None. PW2: Pasala Venkataiah.

Exhibits Marked:

For Complainant: For Accused:

Ex.P1: Mediators Report.Nil. Ex.P2: Confession Statement of Accused. Ex.P3: 25 Live e-tickets. Ex.P4: Screen Shots of Booked Ticket History. Ex.P5: IP Address Particulars. Ex.P6: Original Visiting Card. Ex.P7: Statement of PW2. Ex.P8: Statement of N. Yoganand (LW3). Ex.P9: Statement of G. Subbarayalu (LW5). Ex.P10: Statement of K. Koteswara Rao (LW7). Ex.P11: Statement of N. Naga Raja Rao (LW10). Ex.P12: Statement of C.C. Obul Reddy (LW9). Ex.P13: Statement of S.B. Srihari (LW8). Ex.P14: Statement of V. Venkamuni (LW4). Ex.P15: Statement of Bank Account Statement. Ex.P16: IRCTC Authorisation Letter dated 06-03-2020.

Material Objects Marked:

-Nil-

Id/- M.P.K. Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

For Railways, Nellore.

// True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

1 C.C. No. 150 of 2020

Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No. 150 of 2020 on the file of the

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

1.Date of Offence: 24-10-2019

2.Date of report: 24-10-2019

3.Date of arrest of accused: --

4.Date of release on bail: --

5.Date of commencement of trial: 08-02-2021

6.Date of closure of trial: 22-04-2021

7. Date of judgment: 05-05-2021

8. Complainant: The State represented by A. Koteswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of RPF, Renigunta.

9. Accused: T. Abdul Hakeem, S/o K.K. Abdul Salaam, aged 41 years, R/o D. No. 12-16/1, Bugga Street, Renigunta Town, Chittoor District.

10. Offence : U/Sec. 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court: Found guilty

13. Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly, the accused is convicted u/sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Thereby, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousands only) for the offence punishable u/sec. 143(1)(a) of

Railways Act, 1989, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

The accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and on enquiry, the accused stated that he has got sufficient 2 C.C. No. 150 of 2020 means to engage the counsel. No property order is passed as there is no property in this case.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file against accused for the offence Under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989 as a C.C. No.

150/2020 by this Court on 28-08-2020. On 21-12-2020, copies of all documents are furnished to accused U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 08-02-2021, PW1 was examined in chief and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On 15-02-2021, the accused was examined U/sec. 246, Cr.P.C and charge u/sec. 143(1)(a) of

Railways Act, 1989 was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 18-03-2021, PW1 was present ans was cross examined. On 15-04-2021, PW2 was present and was examined. On 22-04-2021, the learned APP reported no further evidence and the Prosecution Evidence was closed. On 26-04-2021, accused was examined u/sec 313, Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied and reported no Defence Evidence and on 29-04-2021, heard the arguments of both parties and on 05-05-2021, Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

for Railways, Nellore.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The Hon’ble Secretary, DLSA, Nellore.

// True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

3 C.C. No. 150 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

RAILWAYS, NELLORE

Present:- Sri. M. Pradeep Kumar, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Nellore.

Wednesday, the 05th day of May, 2021.

CC. No. 150/2020

The State represented by A. Koteswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of RPF, Renigunta.. . .Complainant ..Vs..

T. Abdul Hakeem, S/o K.K. Abdul Salaam, aged 41 years, R/o D. No. 12-16/1, Bugga Street, Renigunta Town, Chittoor District.. . .Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 29-04-2021 in the presence of learned APP for complainant and Sri B. Murali, Advocate for the accused through Bluejeans App and the matter having been stood for consideration this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The complainant / Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force,

Renigunta filed complaint against the accused in Cr. No. 1023/2019 for the offence punishable under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989.

1. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that on confidential watch on 24-10-2019 at about 11.15am, the complainant A. Koteswara Rao (LW1) along with his staff Y. Jagadish, ASI, Railway Protection Force,

Renigunta (LW8), V. Prasada Rao, ASI, Railway Protection Force, Renigunta (LW9), C.C. Obul Reddy, Constable, Railway Protection Force, Renigunta (LW10), Ch. Seshagiri, Constable, Railway Protection Force, Renigunta 4 C.C. No. 150 of 2020 (LW11) and Smt. Ruby, Woman Constable, Railway Protection Force,

Renigunta (LW12) went to the shop Starnet Shop, D. No. 4-123, G.M. Street,

Renigunta Town, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh State and found accused selling the Railway e-tickets to the passengers on receiving commission and seized the material involved for selling the e-tickets in the presence of mediators and recorded confession statement of accused. Hence, the complaint.

2. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/sec.

143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989 against the accused. Case copies were furnished to the accused u/sec. 207, Cr.P.C.

3. Accused was examined u/sec 246, Cr.P.C. and charge was framed for the offence punishable u/sec. 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989, its contents were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of prosecution, PW1 and PW2 were examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 were marked.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec. 313, Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witness was explained to him in Telugu language, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

6.Heard both sides arguments over video linkage i.e., Bluejeans

App.

5 C.C. No. 150 of 2020

7.Now the point for determination in this case:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for

the offence punishable under section 143(1)(a) of Railways

Act, 1989 beyond reasonable doubt ?

8.The learned A.P.P argued before this Court that the acts of accused are clearly established with the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is completely corroborated to the prosecution case. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

The learned defence counsel argued before this Court that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that PW1 foisted this false case only for statistical purpose. He further argued that PW2 is a planted witness. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

9.Perused the record. Out of 12 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined only two list of witnesses. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of S. Murali Krishna (LW2), B. Ayyavarappa (LW4), N. Sanjeevaiah (LW5), P. Murali (LW6), Manager (LW7), Y. Jagadeesh (LW8), V. Prasada Rao (LW9), C.C. Obul Reddy (LW10), Ch. Seshagiri (LW11) and Ruby (LW12).

PW1 is the Sub-Inspector of RPF and is the person who initiated this case and is the complainant. PW2 is the mediator.

10.As this is a case under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was selling the Railway e- tickets to the passengers on commission basis.

11.PW1 who is Sub-Inspector, RPF, deposed before this Court in his chief examination that on 24-10-2019 at about 11.15am, he along with his 6 C.C. No. 150 of 2020 staff Y. Jagdeesh, ASI, RPF, Renigunta (LW8), V. Prasada Rao, ASI, RPF,

Renigunta (LW9), C.C. Obul Reddy, Constable, RPF, Renigunta (LW10), Ch.

Seshagiri Constable, RPF, Renigunta (LW11) and Ruby, Woman Constable,

RPF, Renigunta (LW12) were on confidential watch and went to Starnet shop,

Door No. 4-123, G.M. Street, Renigunta town and mandal and at that place, he secured the presence of PW2 and Muralikrishna (LW3) as mediators and he along with said mediators went into the said shop and he found the accused in the said shop and he was operating the computer and he enquired the accused in the presence of said mediators and the accused confessed to him that he was doing selling of Railway e-tickets on commission basis of Rs. 100/- per ticket and he opened the computer and he found 3 live e-tickets and 47 booking history for non live Railway e-tickets and he found 08 user Ids out of which 07 user Ids are personal user Ids and one user ID is IRCTC authorised user ID and he took the print outs of computer screen shots and used e-tickets and he seized the said 3 live e- tickets, screen shots and used e-tickets from the possession of the accused in the presence of said mediators and he questioned the accused about his

IRCTC authorisation and the accused stated him that he has IRCTC authorisation and he use to issue tickets to the neede people from his 07 personal user Ids and he do not have authorisation for 07 personal user Ids and he prepared mediators report at that place in the presence of said mediators and he recorded the confession statement of the accused and the accused further confessed that he was running the shop on rental basis and one P. Murali (LW6) was his shop building owner and they returned to their station along with the accused and the seized property and he registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 1023 of 2019 for the offence punishable under sec.

143(1)(a) of Railways Act and he released the accused as he furnished 7 C.C. No. 150 of 2020 sufficient sureties and on 30-11-2019, he recorded the statements of the mediator PW2 and his staff and on 30-11-2019, he obtained bank statement from SBI, Renigunta relating to accused bank account and on 05-12-2019, he recorded the statement of shop building owner Murali (LW6) and on 11-12- 2019, he recorded the statement of V. Prasada Rao (LW9) and on 30-11- 2019, he recorded the statement of mediator Murali Krishna (LW3) and on 20-12-2019, he recorded the statement of the decoy passenger B.

Ayyavarappa (LW4) and on 10-03-2020, he obtained data from IRCTC regarding accused authorisation and after completion of investigation, he filed complaint before this court. PW1 denied the suggestions put by the learned defence counsel in his cross examination that he is not authorised to conduct raids without prior written permission from IRCTC and even he has written permission, he cannot conduct raid in the licenced shop and the accused is no way related to this case and he took print outs of Railway e- tickets which were booked by someone else and he falsely implicated the accused in this case.

12. In support of the evidence of PW1, the prosecution got examined one of the mediators as PW2. PW2 deposed before this court in his chief examination in similar lines that on 24-10-2019 at about 11.30am, he along with his friend Murali Krishna (LW3) were proceeding in GM street,

Renigunta town and at that place, the SI of RPF came to them and requested them to act as mediators and they accepted the same and they went to

Starnet shop and they saw the accused and the RPF police enquired the accused and the accused confessed to the RPF police that he was taking commission of Rs. 50/- per ticket and he was issuing Railway e-tickets to the needy people and the accused further confessed that he was booking 8 C.C. No. 150 of 2020 Railway e-tickets from his computer and the RPF police seized 03 live

Railway e-tickets from the possession of the accused in his presence and prepared mediators report (Ex.P1) and the RPF police recorded the confession statement (Ex.P2) of the accused and the RPF police recorded his statement (Ex.P6) and he affixed his signatures on Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and the signatures shown to him on Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are his signatures. PW2 denied the suggestions put by the learned defence counsel in his cross examination that he did not go to the alleged place and he did not see anything and the

Sub-Inspector of RPF did not seize the Railway e-tickets from the possession of the accused in their presence and the accused did not confess to the Sub-

Inspector of RPF as alleged and he is deposing false as per the instructions given to him by the RPF police.

13.This court observed that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly speaks that they went to the shop of the accused and PW1 secured mediators and seized Railway e-tickets and screen shots of computer from the accused shop as accused was selling Railway e-tickets on commission basis. Moreover, this Court observed that Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in BalaKrishna A. Devidayal Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 1980

Crl.L.J. 1424, it was held as follows:- “An officer of the RPF conducting an enquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act has not been invested with all the powers of an officer-in- charge of a police station making an investigation under chapter XIV of the code. Particularly, he has no power to initiate prosecution by filing a charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned under section 173 of the code, which has been held to be the clinching attribute of an investigating police officer”.

9 C.C. No. 150 of 2020 Thus, judged by the test laid down in Badku Jyoti Savant’s case, which has been consistently adopted in the subsequent decisions noticed above.

Inspector, Kakade of the RPF could not be deemed to be a ‘police officer’ within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, any confessional or incriminating statement recorded by him in the Course of an inquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be excluded from evidence under the said section”.

14.Hence, according to the above decision, this Court clearly opined that the RPF Police will not come under the definition of Police Officer and the evidence of RPF Police is reliable and is admissible. Moreover, the defence counsel arguments is that PW1 has no authorisation or permission to conduct raids, but the learned defence counsel could not establish the same.

Moreover, this court observed that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is very much corroborated to each other. Hence, by combining the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P17, this Court clearly believed that the accused was selling the Railway e-tickets to the passengers on commission basis.

15.From the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly, the accused is convicted u/sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

10 C.C. No. 150 of 2020 Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 05th day of May, 2021.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

For Railways, Nellore.

When the accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, the accused stated that his entire family is depending on him and he has to look after their welfare and pleaded mercy and requested this

Court to take lenient view. As the offence is relating to booking of e-tickets by using personal IDs by the accused, this court is of the opinion that it is not fit case to apply the provisions of Prohibition of Offenders Act and Sec. 360 of

Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court did not apply the Provisions of P.O. Act. However, in view of the mercy pleaded by the accused and in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court opined that sentencing the accused as follows will meet the ends of justice.

Thereby, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousands only) for the offence punishable u/sec. 143(1)(a) of

Railways Act, 1989, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

The accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and on enquiry, the accused stated that he has got sufficient means to engage the counsel. No property order is passed as there is no property in this case.

11 C.C. No. 150 of 2020 Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 05th day of May, 2021.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

for Railways, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined:

For Complainant: For Accused:

PW1: A. Koteswara Rao.None. PW2: Permal Jayapal.

Exhibits Marked:

For Complainant: For Accused:

Ex.P1: Mediators Report.Nil. Ex.P2: Confession Statement of Accused. Ex.P3: 3 Live e-tickets. Ex.P4: Screen Shots of Booked Ticket History. Ex.P5: IP Address details. Ex.P6: Statement of PW2. Ex.P7: Statement of Murali Krishna (LW3). Ex.P8: Statement of Murali (LW6). Ex.P9: Statement of Y. Jagadish (LW8). Ex.P10: Statement of V. Prasada Rao (LW9). Ex.P11: Statement of Obul Reddy (LW10). Ex.P12: Statement of Ruby (LW12). Ex.P13: Statement of Seshagiri (LW11). Ex.P14: Statement of B. Ayyavaraiah (LW4). Ex.P15: Letter dated 07-03-2020. Ex.P16: Bank Account Statement. Ex.P17: Seizure List.

Material Objects Marked:

-Nil-

Id/- M.P.K. Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

For Railways, Nellore.

// True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

1 C.C. No. 40 of 2020

Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No. 40 of 2020 on the file of the

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

1.Date of Offence: 27-09-2019

2.Date of report: 27-09-2019

3.Date of arrest of accused: --

4.Date of release on bail: --

5.Date of commencement of trial: 25-02-2020

6.Date of closure of trial: 22-04-2021

7. Date of judgment: 06-05-2021

8. Complainant: The State represented by S.B. Srihari, Asst. Sub-Inspector of RPF, Srikalahasthi Out-Post.

9. Accused: Chakrala Rajesh, S/o C. Muniram Prasad, aged 37 years, R/o D. No. 4-39, Car Street, Srikalahasthi Town, Chittoor District.

10. Offence : U/Sec. 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court: Found guilty

13. Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly, the accused is convicted u/sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Thereby, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousands only) for the offence punishable u/sec. 143(1)(a) of

Railways Act, 1989, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

The accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and on enquiry, the accused stated that he has got sufficient 2 C.C. No. 40 of 2020 means to engage the counsel. No property order is passed as there is no property in this case.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file against accused for the offence Under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989 as a C.C. No.

40/2020 by this Court on 25-02-2020. On 10-02-2021, copies of all documents are furnished to accused U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 25-02-2021, PW1 was examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. On 01-03-2021, the accused was examined U/sec. 246, Cr.P.C and charge u/sec. 143(1)(a) of Railways

Act, 1989 was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 08-04-2021, PW2 was present and was examined. On 22-04-2021, the learned APP reported no further evidence and the Prosecution Evidence was closed. On 26-04-2021, accused was examined u/sec 313, Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied and reported no Defence Evidence and on 29-04-2021, heard the arguments of both parties and on 06-05-2021, Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

for Railways, Nellore.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The Hon’ble Secretary, DLSA, Nellore.

// True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

3 C.C. No. 40 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

RAILWAYS, NELLORE

Present:- Sri. M. Pradeep Kumar, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Nellore.

Thursday, the 06th day of May, 2021.

CC. No. 40/2020

The State represented by S.B. Srihari, Asst. Sub-Inspector of RPF, Srikalahasthi Out-Post.. . .Complainant ..Vs..

Chakrala Rajesh, S/o C. Muniram Prasad, aged 37 years, R/o D. No. 4-39, Car Street, Srikalahasthi Town, Chittoor District.. . .Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 29-04-2021 in the presence of learned APP for complainant and Sri Vada Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the accused through Bluejeans App and the matter having been stood for consideration this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The complainant / Asst. Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force,

Srikalahasthi filed complaint against the accused in Cr. No. 302/2019 for the offence punishable under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989.

1. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that on confidential watch on 27-09-2019 at about 10.15am, the complainant S.B. Srihari (LW1) along with his staff Y. Jagadeesh, ASI, Railway Protection Force, Renigunta (LW8), V. Prasada Rao, ASI, Renigunta (LW9), T. Balasubramanyam, Head

Constable, Railway Protection Force, Srikalahasthi (LW10), C.C. Obul Reddy,

Constable, Railway Protection Force, Renigunta (LW11) and Mukesh Yadav, 4 C.C. No. 40 of 2020 Constable, Railway Protection Force, Srikalahasthi (LW12) went to the shop

Raju Travels, D. No. 4/39, Car Street, Srikalahasthi Town, Chittoor District,

Andhra Pradesh State and found accused selling the Railway e-tickets to the passengers on receiving commission and seized the material involved for selling the e-tickets in the presence of mediators and recorded confession statement of accused. Hence, the complaint.

2. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/sec.

143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989 against the accused. Case copies were furnished to the accused u/sec. 207, Cr.P.C.

3. Accused was examined u/sec 246, Cr.P.C. and charge was framed for the offence punishable u/sec. 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989, its contents were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of prosecution, PW1 and PW2 were examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 were marked.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec. 313, Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witness was explained to him in Telugu language, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

6.Heard both sides arguments over video linkage i.e., Bluejeans

App.

5 C.C. No. 40 of 2020

7.Now the point for determination in this case:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for

the offence punishable under section 143(1)(a) of Railways

Act, 1989 beyond reasonable doubt ?

8.The learned A.P.P argued before this Court that the acts of accused are clearly established with the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is completely corroborated to the prosecution case. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

The learned defence counsel argued before this Court that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that PW1 foisted this false case only for statistical purpose. He further argued that PW2 is a planted witness. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

9.Perused the record. Out of 12 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined only two list of witnesses. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of M. Subramanyam (LW2), Anantha Barman (LW4), N. Sanjeevaiah (LW5), J. Subramanyam (LW6), Manager (LW7), Y. Jagadeesh (LW8), V.

Prasada Rao (LW9), T. Balasubramanyam (LW10), C.C. Obul Reddy (LW11) and Mukesh Yadav (LW12). PW1 is the Asst. Sub-Inspector of RPF and is the person who initiated this case and is the complainant. PW2 is the mediator.

10.As this is a case under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was selling the Railway e- tickets to the passengers on commission basis.

11.PW1 who is Assistant Sub-Inspector, RPF, deposed before this

Court in his chief examination that on 27-09-2019 at about 10.15am, on 6 C.C. No. 40 of 2020 receiving credible information, he along with his staff Y. Jagadeesh, ASI, RPF,

Renigunta (LW8), V. Prasada Rao, ASI, RPF, Renigunta (LW9), T.

Balasubramanyam, Head constable, RPF, Srikalahasthi (LW10), C.C. Obul

Reddy, Constable, RPF, Renigunta (LW11) and Mukesh Yadav, Constable,

RPF, Srikalahasthi (LW12) proceeded to a shop Raju Travels, Door No. 4/39,

Car Street, Srikalahasthi town, Chittoor district and at that place, he secured the presence of PW2 and M. Subramanyam (LW2) as mediators and he along with said mediators went into the said shop and he found the accused in the said shop and he was operating the computer and he enquired the accused in the presence of said mediators and the accused confessed to him that he was doing selling of Railway e-tickets on commission basis of Rs.

100/- per ticket and he opened the computer and he found 15 live e-tickets and 18 sheets of screen shots relating to booking history for non live Railway e-tickets and he found 08 user Ids and he took the print outs of computer screen shots and used e-tickets and he seized the said 15 live e-tickets, screen shots and used e-tickets from the possession of the accused in the presence of said mediators and he questioned the accused about his IRCTC authorisation and the accused stated him that he has no IRCTC authorisation and the accused further confessed to him that he has bank account and he was booking the railway e-tickets through BSNL internet connection through his bank account and the accused further confessed that he was running the said shop on his own and he prepared mediators report at that place in the presence of said mediators and he recorded the confession statement of the accused and they returned to their station along with the accused and the seized property and he registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 302 of 2019 for the offence punishable under sec. 143(1)(a) of Railways Act and he released the accused as he furnished sufficient sureties and on 04-10-2019, 7 C.C. No. 40 of 2020 he addressed a letter to CRI, Tirupathi to block the said 15 live e-tickets and on 30-11-2019, he recorded the statements of T. Balasubramanyam (LW10) and Mukesh Yadav (LW12) and on 01-12-2019, he recorded the statements of said mediators and on 02-12-2019, he recorded the statements of Y.

Jagadeesh (LW8), V. Prasada Rao (LW9) and C.C. Obul Reddy (LW11) and on 03-12-2019, he obtained Bank statement of the accused bank account from the Manager, SBI, Srikalahasthi and on 04-12-2019, he obtained user Ids and agent ID particulars from N. Sanjeevaiah (LW5) and on 21-12-2019, he recorded the statement of the passenger by name Anantha Barman (LW4) and after completion of investigation, he filed complaint before this court.

PW1 denied the suggestions put by the learned defence counsel in his cross examination that the accused never run a shop and the accused never sold

Railway e-tickets and he falsely implicated the accused in this case for statistical purpose and the accused is no way related to this case and he prepared all the material in their station and the mediators are their stock witnesses.

12. In support of the evidence of PW1, the prosecution got examined one of the mediators as PW2. PW2 deposed before this court in his chief examination in similar lines that on 27-09-2019 at about 10.15am, he along with M. Subramanyam (LW2) went to bazar in Srikalahasthi town and at that place, the ASI of RPF came to them and requested them to act as mediators and they accepted the same and they saw the accused and the

RPF police enquired the accused and the accused confessed to the RPF police that he was taking commission of Rs. 100/- per ticket and he was issuing Railway e-tickets to the needy people and the accused further confessed that he was booking Railway e-tickets from his computer and the 8 C.C. No. 40 of 2020 RPF police seized 15 live Railway e-tickets from the possession of the accused in his presence and prepared mediators report (Ex.P2) and the RPF police recorded the confession statement (Ex.P3) of the accused and the RPF police recorded his statement (Ex.P13) and he affixed his signatures on Ex.P2 to Ex.P8 and Ex.P13 and the signatures shown to him on Ex.P2 to Ex.P8 and

Ex.P13 are his signatures. PW2 denied the suggestions put by the learned defence counsel in his cross examination that he did not go to the alleged place and he did not see anything and the Inspector of RPF did not seize the

Railway e-tickets from the possession of the accused in their presence and the accused did not confess to the Inspector of RPF as alleged and he is deposing false as per the instructions given to him by the RPF police.

13.This court observed that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly speaks that they went to the shop of the accused and PW1 secured mediators and seized Railway e-tickets and screen shots of computer from the accused shop as accused was selling Railway e-tickets on commission basis. Moreover, this Court observed that Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in BalaKrishna A. Devidayal Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 1980

Crl.L.J. 1424, it was held as follows:- “An officer of the RPF conducting an enquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act has not been invested with all the powers of an officer-in- charge of a police station making an investigation under chapter XIV of the code. Particularly, he has no power to initiate prosecution by filing a charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned under section 173 of the code, which has been held to be the clinching attribute of an investigating police officer”.

Thus, judged by the test laid down in Badku Jyoti Savant’s case, which 9 C.C. No. 40 of 2020 has been consistently adopted in the subsequent decisions noticed above.

Inspector, Kakade of the RPF could not be deemed to be a ‘police officer’ within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, any confessional or incriminating statement recorded by him in the Course of an inquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be excluded from evidence under the said section”.

14.Hence, according to the above decision, this Court clearly opined that the RPF Police will not come under the definition of Police Officer and the evidence of RPF Police is reliable and is admissible. Moreover, the defence counsel arguments is that PW1 has foisted this false case against the Accused only for statistical purpose, but the learned defence counsel could not establish the same. Moreover, this court observed that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is very much corroborated to each other. Hence, by combining the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P20, this Court clearly believed that the accused was selling the Railway e-tickets to the passengers on commission basis.

15.From the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly, the accused is convicted u/sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 06th day of May, 2021.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

For Railways, Nellore.

10 C.C. No. 40 of 2020 When the accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, the accused stated that his entire family is depending on him and he has to look after their welfare and pleaded mercy and requested this

Court to take lenient view. As the offence is relating to booking of e-tickets by using personal IDs by the accused, this court is of the opinion that it is not fit case to apply the provisions of Prohibition of Offenders Act and Sec. 360 of

Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court did not apply the Provisions of P.O. Act. However, in view of the mercy pleaded by the accused and in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court opined that sentencing the accused as follows will meet the ends of justice.

Thereby, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousands only) for the offence punishable u/sec. 143(1)(a) of

Railways Act, 1989, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

The accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and on enquiry, the accused stated that he has got sufficient means to engage the counsel. No property order is passed as there is no property in this case.

Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 06th day of May, 2021.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

for Railways, Nellore.

11 C.C. No. 40 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined:

For Complainant: For Accused:

PW1: S.B. Srihari.None. PW2: Kollipora Ramesh.

Exhibits Marked:

For Complainant: For Accused:

Ex.P1: Occurrence Report.Nil. Ex.P2: Mediators Report. Ex.P3: Confession Statement of Accused. Ex.P4: Seizure List. Ex.P5: 15 Live e-tickets. Ex.P6: Screen Shots of Booked Ticket History. Ex.P7: IP Address Particulars. Ex.P8: Original Visiting Card. Ex.P9: Letter dated 27-09-2019. Ex.P10: Statement of T. Balasubramanyam (LW10). Ex.P11: Statement of Mukesh Yadav (LW12). Ex.P12: Statement of M. Subramanyam (LW2). Ex.P13: Statement of PW2. Ex.P14: Statement of Y. Jagadeesh (LW8). Ex.P15: Statement of V. Prasada Rao (LW9). Ex.P16: Statement of C.C. Obul Reddy (LW11). Ex.P17: Statement of Anantha Barman (LW4). Ex.P18: IRCTC Particulars of 3 sheets. Ex.P19: IRCTC Authorisation Particulars along with covering Letter dated 03- 12-2019. Ex.P20: Bank Account Statement.

Material Objects Marked:

-Nil-

Id/- M.P.K. Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class

For Railways, Nellore.

// True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.