1 CR.APPEAL NO.245/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.245 OF 2000 Date of decision: 30/6/2011 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/No. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? Private Secretary AGP/office/245-00cr.a/30-6-11 2 CR.APPEAL NO.245/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.245 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra through Inspector, RPF Akola. ...APPELLANT (Ori.Complainant) VERSUS 1. Shaikh Ramjan Shaikh Munnu, aged 35 yrs., r/o Ward No.3, Hingoli. 2. Rajaram Bhojraj, Section Engineer (Railway), Hingoli. 3. Pralhad s/o Daryaji, aged 36 yrs., Occu. Helper (Khalashi), r/o Hingoli. 4. Rustum s/o Namdeo, aged 47 yrs., occu. Gangman, Gang No.4, r/o Railway Qrtr. Hingoli. 5. Bhimrao Shivram Kamble, aged 43 yrs. Occu. Trolleyman ( Railways), Hingoli. 6. Shaikh Ajij Shaikh Ibrahim, aged 56 yrs., occu. Trolleyman (Rly), Hingoli. 7. Ambadas Dnyanoji, aged 30 yrs., r/o. Dawla, Tq. Aundha, Dist. Parbhani. 8. Shaikh Burhan s/o Shaikh Munnu, aged 40 yrs., r/o Ward No.3, Hingoli. ...RESPONDENTS (Ori. accused) ... 3 CR.APPEAL NO.245/2000 Mr. P.P.More, APP for appellant. Mr. P.G.Godhamgaonkar, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 to 6 and 8. Respondent no.7 served. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : June 30th, 2011 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The matter is substantially argued by Mr. P.P.More, learned A.P.P., and Mr. P.G.Godhamgaonkar, for the respective parties. 2. The prosecution, as seen earlier, is initiated by Mr.Balkrishna Meena, Inspector of Railway Protection Force ( for short, "RPF") and not at any stage by the State of Maharashtra. The entire investigation is carried by Mr.Balkrishna Meena, Inspector of RPF, including chargesheet. The learned Judge, Railway Court at Aurangabad, conducted the trial for the offense under Section 3-A of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, against respondent nos. 1 to 8. 3. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the matter of Lalu Prasad Yadav & Anr Vs. State of Bihar and Anr ( AIR 2010 (SC) 1561), t taking recourse to provisions of Section 378 of Cr.P.C., dealing 4 CR.APPEAL NO.245/2000 with appeal against acquittal, while interpreting the said Section, observed that the prosecution in such matter could only be by the agency concerned and not by other authorities. In the situation at hand, the appeal should have been by the Railway Police force and not by the State of Maharashtra. The appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra will not be maintainable and, it is, accordingly, dismissed. The acquittal of the respondents is confirmed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/245-00cr.a