IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.2522 OF 2010. Date:08.04.2010 Between:- Ibrahim Shabbir Ahmed ..Petitioner/A-14 And The State, rep.by the Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Goothy, Ananthapur District, rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .. Respondent/Complainant ORDER:- Accused No.14 in C.C.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for Railways, Guntakal, Ananthapur District is the petitioner. He is accused of offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (in short, the Act) along with others. 2. It is prosecution case that officials of Railway Protection Force seized several railway properties from possession of A-1 to A-4 on 24.04.2008 from various cases. In so far as the petitioner/A-14 is concerned, it is alleged that he was Section Engineer/Signal/Kondapuram Railway Station and was Incharge of Stores in Kondapuram Railway Station. As per confession statement of A-6 from whom a generator was seized, he purchased the said generator for Rs.15,000/-. It is further prosecution case that A-8 also confessed that he assisted A-1 in purchase of 600 litres of diesel oil and old 6 KV Kirloskar generator from A-14. It is on the basis of the said confessional statements of co-accused, A-14 was included in the array of the accused in the charge sheet. Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Gooty filed complaint before the Magistrate alleging offence under Section 3(a) of the Act and nothing else. 3. Admittedly, no part of the railway property was seized from possession of A-14 muchless such possession was unlawful. Except confessions of co-accused given to the police, there is no other evidence collected by the complainant to show that it was A-14, who sold the seized railway property to the other accused. In the absence of any evidence independent of the confessional statements, A-14 cannot be accused of offence under section 3(a) of the Act. 4. It is contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor that during investigation, several registers and accounts of the stores were inspected by the complainant and several discrepancies were found and that the allegations in the charge sheet also attract other penal offences under I.P.C. 5. The above argument is not available to the prosecution in this petition because the complainant has chosen to file the complaint before the Magistrate for only the offence under Section 3(a) of the Act and it was taken cognizance by the Magistrate for only that offence and nothing more. Thus, there is absolutely, no legal evidence against A-14/petitioner about his participation in this offence. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.11 of 2009 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for Railways, Guntakal, Ananthapur District in so far as the petitioner/A-4 is concerned. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 8th April 2010 AMD