IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1383 OF 2009 Between: The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND P. Bhaskar ..... Respondent/Accused The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed by the State against the judgment, dated 16.06.2008, in C.C.No.294 of 2007, on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the Respondent/Accused No.4 was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short, “the Act”), and accordingly, he was acquitted. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: on 05.10.2004, P.W.1-Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Workshop, Lalaguda, along with the Head Constable-M. Srinivas, noticed Accused Nos.1 to 3 along with a lorry bearing No.AET 1786 loaded with wooden logs of Railways in a suspicious manner. The above lorry was chased and intercepted at Habsiguda, Nacharam circle near traffic signals. On enquiry in the presence of Mediators, Accused No.1 showed the gate pass. On examination of the gate pass, P.W.1 found that it was signed by the Inspector of Work, South Central Railways. In the gate pass, the registration number of lorry was wrongly mentioned as AET 1876 and there was no mention of the quantity of logs. The gate pass was in a plain paper and it was not having any office seal or stamp and it also did not contain the place of destination. Then P.W.1 drafted a Panchanama and seized 84 Nos. of wooden logs and also the crime lorry in the presence of Mediators. Then, Accused Nos.1 to 3 were produced before P.W.2-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Work Shop, Lalaguda. The confessional statements of Accused Nos.1 to 3 were recorded and the accused were remanded to judicial custody. On 06.10.2004, Accused No.4 attended the Railway Protection Force office, Work Shop, Lalaguda and the statement of Accused No.4 was recorded in the presence of Mediators, he was also arrested and sent to Court for judicial custody. During the course of further investigation, Accused Nos.5 and 6 were also arrested and their confessional statements were also recorded. After completion of the investigation, the Railway Protection Force filed the complaint. 3. The case was taken on file against Accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of the Act. 4. When a charge under Section 246 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of the Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused, Accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 & 6 pleaded guilty and they were convicted and sentenced according to law in C.C.No.318 of 2005, and as the Respondent/Accused No.4 pleaded not guilty for the offence, the case against him was split up and renumbered as C.C.No.294 of 2007. Subsequently, the charge was altered to Section 4 of the Act, and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P47, besides case property M.Os.1 & 2. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No.4 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of Accused No.4, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, rightly acquitted Accused No.4 for the charge levelled against him as the complainant failed to establish the guilt of Accused No.4 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the complainant proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the Respondent/Accused No.4 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 9. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence on record would go to show that Accused No.4 was issuing false passes and thereby causing loss to the Railway property and this aspect of the case has been completely overlooked by the trial Court, and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal, the Appellate Court has got full power to reappreciate the evidence available on record, but it will be slow in interfering with the findings in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and that presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless the findings are perverse, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons while interfering with the order of acquittal. 11. The trial Court acquitted Accused No.4 on the ground that Accused No.4 has issued several passes on white papers and the same were honoured by the Officers concerned and there was no standard format of gate pass which has been produced by the complainant. 12. P.W.6 is the Railway Engineer who categorically stated that on 29.09.2004, Accused No.4, being the Railway Engineer, had allowed the other accused to transport the cut wooden logs from the Railway area. P.W.6 also admitted that on 24.09.2004, the accused took approval for cutting of the trees and its disposal by the contractor, in writing. He further stated that the act done by Accused No.4 is within the limits of his official duty and there was nothing wrong with Accused No.4. P.W.6, who is the Engineer of the Railway Department, is the competent witness to speak about the legality of the act done by Accused No.4. Further more, though Ex.P13-Gate Pass Book was written on white paper, the complainant has not produced the format of the gate pass to show that prior to the offence in question, the Railway property i.e., wooden logs was being transported in the vehicles in the standard format only. 13. On the other hand, the evidence on record would go to show that prior to the incident in question, the concerned authorities were honouring the gate passes issued on white papers. The only irregularity is that wrongly noting the number of the lorry. The correct number of the lorry was AET 1786. But, it was wrongly mentioned in the gate pass as AET 1876. It is purely a mistake on the part of Accused No.4 to note down the wrong number. As accused issued Ex.P13-Gate Pass, no offence can be made out. It is not the case of illegal transportation of wooden logs without there being any authority. Hence, the trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, rightly acquitted Accused No.4. The said order does not call for any interference by this Court as there are no compelling or substantial reasons. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 16.06.2008, in C.C.No.294 of 2007, on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 6th November, 2009 KL