HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2066 of 2004 JUDGMENT: Questioning acquittal of the respondents 1 to 4/A.1 to A.4 of the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (unlawful possession) Act, 1966, the State/Public Prosecutor filed this appeal. The raid party consisting of PWs.1 to 3 went to Palakonda to iron scrap shop of A.4 on 27.02.2000 at about 10.00 A.M. and found A.1 to A.3 in the shop dealing with railway property in the shop. It is alleged that the raid party seized Mos.1 to 9 railway property from that place from A.1 to A.3 under the cover of Ex.P.1 seizure list and recorded statements of A.1 to A.3 as per Exs.P.2 to P.4. The seized property consisted of 26 fish bolts, 4 brake blocks, 3 broken pieces thereof, 300 guage liners, 6 pieces of anchor set, 4 fish plates, 5 broad guage rail pieces, 23 pendrol clips, 3 bearing plates and one screw spike. The said items covered by MOs.1 to 9 were certified to be railway property by the concerned officers. Certificates were also obtained from Mandal Revenue Officer and Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to the effect that A.4 occupied the site in which iron scrap including MOs 1 to 9 were found and was doing iron scrap business. Plea of A.1 to A.4 is one of total denial and not guilty. The lower Court found A.1 to A.4 not guilty of the charge on the ground that there is discrepancy in evidence of PWs.1 to 3 with regard to time of starting at Vizianagaram, reaching shop of A.4 at Palakonda and seizing the railway property. On the said ground alone, the lower Court did not place reliance on evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and 6. In my opinion, reasoning given by the lower Court is perverse. The lower Court cannot expect witnesses to give timings with mathematical or arithmetical precision. Even if the witnesses gave timings with mathematical precision and repeating the same in parrot- like manner, then it becomes artificial. The lower Court did not at all advert to Exs.P.2 to P.4 statements of A.1 to A.3 recorded by PW.1. The said statements of A.1 to A.3 are admissible pieces of evidence and are relevant under the Evidence Act, as they were recorded by an official of railway protection force and not by the police. It is evidence of PW.1 that A.1 to A.3 failed to produce proper receipt or authority for possession of the above property. It is contended that PW.6 who is the sole mediator in Ex.P.1 seizure list turned hostile to the prosecution. It is his evidence that when he was in Vizianagaram Railway Station, RPF personnel obtained his signature on some paper and that in his presence nothing was seized from possession of anybody. He is a Tea vendor in Vizianagaram railway station. But he did not explain as to why he signed and what prompted him to sign in Ex.P.1 as mediator when he was allegedly not present at the time of seizure of the railway property thereunder. It is not his case that he colluded with PWs.1 to 3 or that he had any fear of PWs.1 to 3 for any reason or that he was involved in any criminal case booked by them. In the absence of any specific reason, PW.6 cannot be believed to say that he signed in Ex.P.1 for mere asking. Without scrutinizing the evidence on record carefully and meticulously, the lower Court recorded finding of acquittal on superficial reason of there being discrepancy in the timings given by PWs. 1 to 3. The said finding is highly unreasonable and unjust and it is contrary to voluminous evidence on record produced by the prosecution, including huge railway property seized in this case. Even though the prosecution has chosen to include A.4 also in this case, the prosecution could not prove that A.4 was in physical possession of MOs.1 to 9. A.4 was not present in the yard at the time of raid and seizure under the cover of Ex.P.1. Simply because there is evidence produced by the prosecution with regard to A.4’s occupation of the site, one cannot jump to the conclusion that A.4 was also in unlawful possession of the seized property in this case. Evidence on record undoubtedly reveal that A.1 to A.3 were in unlawful possession of railway property which was seized under Ex.P.1 seizure list. In these circumstances, finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court is liable to be set aside insofar as the respondents 1 to 3/A.1 to A.3 are concerned. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed convicting the respondents 1 to 3/A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (unlawful possession) Act, 1966 and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment of one year. The appeal is partly dismissed in respect of the 4th respondent/A.4. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 13th December, 2011. PNV