IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.1 of 2008 RAMJEE SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner/Complainant: Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, Advocate. For the Opposite Party no. 2 and 3: Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukharji,Sr.Advocate & Mr. Shanti Pratap, Advocate. 06. 27.01.2009 Heard both sides. Petitioner/complainant takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court (Railway Judicial Magistrate, Barauni) in Barauni R.P.F.Case No. 2/98 (Trial No. 173 of 2007). By the said impugned judgment the accuseds/opposite parties herein who are also the employees of the Railway Department have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. As per allegation, the complainant/petitioner is said to have visited the store and on verification found that there were 8 motors ( 110 V.D.C/Epm) instead of 6 motors as per the records of the store. The accuseds/ opposite parties herein, during the relevant time, were posted to take care of the stores. Accused/ opposite party no.2,namely, Kari Paswan was store keeper, whereas, accused/opposite party no.3,namely, Musafir Paswan was clerk. The complainant/petitioner found and noticed that two motors of the aforesaid description were kept on the ‘veranda’. On these facts, it was alleged that they were found in illegal 2 possession of the two motors belonging to the Railway. In course of trial documents were brought on record indicating that those two motors were delivered on the same day from different workshops and were entered into the D.T.R. ( Daily Transaction Register). Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant admits before this court that the records indicated that those two motors found kept on the ‘veranda’ were entered in the daily transaction Register. The case was lodged on the ground that the ledger did not contain their entries. The accused/ opposite party no.2 has appeared as defence witness and has brought on record Exhibits which do indicate that the two electric motors were delivered on the same day and were entered in relevant records. The complainant did not verify those records and filed the complaint. The learned trial court, in the light of those facts found and held that mere placement of the two electric motors on the ‘veranda’ of the office of the accused/ opposite parties herein cannot prove their unlawful possession over the same. The learned trial court has also noticed the fact that relevant entries relating to those two electric motors were already made in the daily transaction registers. In the backdrop of these facts, the consideration of the matter by the learned trial court cannot be said to have suffered from any patent illegality. This court finds no merit in this 3 application seeking leave, which is accordingly dismissed. Since the case has been considered on merit and disposed of, the application seeking condonation of delay bearing I.A.No. 55/2008 pales into insignificance which is also disposed of order accordingly. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)