: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1537 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1537 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1537 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Memoranda of Coram Memoranda of Coram Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court’s orders appearances, Court’s orders appearances, Court’s orders or directions and or directions and or directions and Registrar’s orders Registrar’s orders Registrar’s orders ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ Ms. Ms. Ms. M.H.Mhatre APP for State M.H.Mhatre APP for State M.H.Mhatre APP for State Coram : R.S.Mohite, J Coram : R.S.Mohite, J Coram : R.S.Mohite, J Date : 28.11.2007 Date : 28.11.2007 Date : 28.11.2007 PC PC PC 1. This is an application for leave to 1. This is an application for leave to 1. This is an application for leave to appeal filed by the State. Leave is appeal filed by the State. Leave is appeal filed by the State. Leave is sought to enable an appeal to be filed sought to enable an appeal to be filed sought to enable an appeal to be filed against the judgment and order dated against the judgment and order dated against the judgment and order dated 22nd September, 2006 passed by the 22nd September, 2006 passed by the 22nd September, 2006 passed by the J.M.F.C.Railway Court, Pune in J.M.F.C.Railway Court, Pune in J.M.F.C.Railway Court, Pune in R.C.C.Case No.34 of 2003 whereby the R.C.C.Case No.34 of 2003 whereby the R.C.C.Case No.34 of 2003 whereby the accused have been acquitted for the accused have been acquitted for the accused have been acquitted for the offence punishable under section 3 (a) offence punishable under section 3 (a) offence punishable under section 3 (a) of the Railways Property (Unlawful of the Railways Property (Unlawful of the Railways Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 1966. A perusal of Possession) Act. 1966. A perusal of Possession) Act. 1966. A perusal of the judgment and order indicates that the judgment and order indicates that the judgment and order indicates that the same is based on plausible reasons. the same is based on plausible reasons. the same is based on plausible reasons. Accused no.1 was the driver of the Accused no.1 was the driver of the Accused no.1 was the driver of the vehicle which was accosted at the gate vehicle which was accosted at the gate vehicle which was accosted at the gate of the station. It was alleged that he of the station. It was alleged that he of the station. It was alleged that he was carrying one extra parcel which was was carrying one extra parcel which was was carrying one extra parcel which was railway property. The Investigation railway property. The Investigation railway property. The Investigation Officer has admitted that the wooden Officer has admitted that the wooden Officer has admitted that the wooden parcel is not produced before the parcel is not produced before the parcel is not produced before the Court. The gate pass which was seized Court. The gate pass which was seized Court. The gate pass which was seized and which is alleged to be in respect and which is alleged to be in respect and which is alleged to be in respect of some other parcels which were in the of some other parcels which were in the of some other parcels which were in the vehicle did not bear the number of the vehicle did not bear the number of the vehicle did not bear the number of the vehicle. It is further admitted that vehicle. It is further admitted that vehicle. It is further admitted that on the date of the incident he had not on the date of the incident he had not on the date of the incident he had not received any information of theft. The received any information of theft. The received any information of theft. The seizure panchas did not support the seizure panchas did not support the seizure panchas did not support the prosecution case. The view taken is a prosecution case. The view taken is a prosecution case. The view taken is a possible view. Hence, leave refused. possible view. Hence, leave refused. possible view. Hence, leave refused. Consequently, appeal papers to be Consequently, appeal papers to be Consequently, appeal papers to be filed. filed. filed. : 2 : (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)