IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1446 OF 2009 Between: The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND G. Shanker & 5 others ..... Respondents/Accused The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), is directed by the State against the judgment, dated 28.04.2008, in C.C.No.541 of 2006, on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the Accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Originally, the Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Sirpur, Kagaznagar, filed the charge sheet against six accused. As Accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 were found to be absconding, the case against them was separated and the trial Court tried the respondents herein who are Accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal may be stated as follows. It is alleged that A1, who was a woodcutter, cut the eucalyptus trees in the area belong to railways of Sirpur, Kagaznagar, on 12.03.2004. The Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Sirpur, Kagaznagar, arrested A1 when he was cutting the eucalyptus branches into pieces in Platform No.1 of Sirpur, Kagaznagar. Basing on A1’s confessional statement, the Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Sirpur, Kagaznagar, came to know about the deal among Accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6. Basing on the report given by P.W.1, the Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Sirpur, Kagazanagar, registered a case as Crime No.2 of 2004, for the offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of the Act and investigated into. 4. A charge under Section 4 of the Act was framed against Accused Nos.2, 3 and 5, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P36, besides material objects M.Os.1 to 4. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Exs.D1 and D2. 7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge levelled against them, and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Hence, this Criminal Appeal by the State. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the charge under Section 4 of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 9. Learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is very clear that A1 cut the eucalyptus trees in the area belonging to railways of Sirpur, Kagaznagar, which is the property of the railways; that basing on the confessional statement of A1, the Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Sirpur, Kagaznagar, came to know about the cutting of trees deal was settled among Accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6; that therefore, the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal, the Appellate Court has got full power to reappreciate the evidence available on record, but it will slow in interfering with the findings in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., the findings are perverse, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. 11. The trial Court acquitted Accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 on the ground that they cut the eucalyptus trees in the railway area of Sirpur, Kagaznagar, as the branches of trees were hanging on the electrical line and causing obstruction. Therefore, they have done a statutory duty. Ex.D1 is the letter addressed to the Assistant Division of Electrical Engineer/Traction Distribution/Kazipet by the Senior Division of Electrical Engineer/Traction Distribution/SC, directing him to inspect the O.H.E. and P.S.I. Depots at Sirpur, Kagaznagar and confirm whether the logs of cut wood of eucalyptus trees was brought back and kept in depots. Similarly, Ex.D2 is the letter, dated 12.03.2004, in reply to Ex.D1-letter, addressed to the Senior Division of Electrical Engineer/Traction Distribution/SC by the Assistant Division of Electrical Engineer/Traction Distribution/Kazipet, stating that he came to Sirpur, Kagaznagar and witnessed the availability of cut wood pieces of eucalyptus trees at O.H.E. Depot/Sirpur, Kagaznagar and T.S.S./Sirpur, Kagazanagar on 12.03.2004. Therefore, these two documents would clearly go to show that Accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 have not committed any theft or taken away the branches of the eucalyptus trees. 12. It is not in dispute that the eucalyptus trees were the exclusive property of the railways as they were lying along the railway track. There is no dispute about the cutting of eucalyptus trees. But the contention of the accused is that they cut the eucalyptus trees because they were hanging on the electrical line and causing obstruction. Therefore, in discharge of their official duties, they cut the branches of the eucalyptus trees. If they misutilised or misappropriated the branches of eucalyptus trees, then certainly it is an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act. But it is not the case of the prosecution that the eucalyptus trees were cut and carried away by the accused. As a matter of fact, when the concerned official inspected the spot as per Ex.D2-letter, the eucalyptus trees were found along the sidetrack of the railways. Basing on his evidence, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. The said order does not suffer from any infirmities calling interference by this Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 28.04.2008, in C.C.No.541 of 2006, on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 3rd November, 2009 KL