THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1054 and 1146 of 2000 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners herein were tried as A-1 to A-3 in C.C.No.185 of 1994 filed before the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, who, on analysis of both oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’) and, accordingly, by judgment dated 08.09.1997, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. As against the said judgment, A-1 and A-2 preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.429 of 1997, while A-3 preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.430 of 1997 on the file of the Court of II-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the same were dismissed by common judgment dated 14.09.2000, confirming the judgment dated 08.09.1997 of the trial Court. Assailing the same, A-3 preferred Criminal Revision Case No.1054 of 2000, whereas A-1 and A-2 preferred Criminal Revision Case No.1146 of 2000. Since these two Criminal Revision Cases arise out of common judgment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: On 12.06.1994, at 4.00 p.m., PW.1-SI/CIB/Hqrs and his staff, on suspision, detained a lorry bearing No.AHT 8086 near Dharmakanta, Bholakpur, Musheerabad, and on checking it, they found it containing railway permanent way materials such as CST-9 plates and tie bars. Immediately, they secured the presence of panchas and, in their presence, enquired the driver-Accused No.1 and Accused No.2, who were present in the lorry. Accused Nos.1 and 2 confessed that the said lorry belongs to one Mohd. Azam of Mallepalle, that the materials found in the lorry were loaded by A-3 along with his labour and A-2 at Hasanparthy Railway Station and A-3 instructed them to deliver the material at the scrap shop of Mohd. Anwar at Mushirabad. No valid documents for possession of the said material loaded in the lorry were found with the accused. P.W.1 seized the lorry along with material loaded in it and other documents under a cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators, arrested Accused Nos.1 and 2 and recorded their confessional statements, and handed over the seized material along with lorry and Accused Nos.1 and 2 to the Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Secunderabad, for further investigation. A case in Crime No.16 of 1994 was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Act. On 04.07.1994, Accused No.3 was arrested and released on bail, in view of the anticipatory bail obtained by him. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Act. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P25 and M.Os.1 to 3. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence. On consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court, by judgment dated 08.09.1997, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, Accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.429 of 1997, whereas Accused No.3 preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.430 of 1997 before the learned II- Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who, by his common judgment dated 14.09.2000, dismissed both the appeals confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Assailing the same, Accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred the present Civil Revision Case No.1146 of 2000, whereas Accused No.3 preferred the present Civil Revision Case No.1054 of 2000. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the Civil Revision Cases, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent. On perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below and hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that both the Courts below have rightly assessed the evidence brought on record and, in fact, there is nothing to discredit the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 11. Hence, I see no merits in both these Civil Revision Cases. However, taking into account that the alleged offence took place on 12.06.1994 and the petitioners were in jail before commencement of trial and also after dismissal of the appeals i.e., for a total period of about 45 days, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced, by taking a lenient view. Accordingly, both these Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed, maintaining the conviction imposed on the petitioners by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court, but reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners to that of the period already undergone by them. However, the petitioners are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) each, before the trial Court, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and in default, it is needless to observe that they have to undergo the entire sentence as imposed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 05.03.2010 v v