[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1794 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Javed Akhtar Shaikh and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State Mr.B.G.Tangsali (absent) Adv.for Respondents ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : MAY 05, 2008 DATE : MAY 05, 2008 DATE : MAY 05, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.10.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Railway Court, Pune in Regular Criminal Case No.24 of 2006. By the judgment and order, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the Respondents-accused of the offences under Section 143 (b) of the Railways Act. 2. I have heard the learned APP for the State. I have perused the evidence which has been produced by him as well as the judgment and order. [-2-] 3. The case of the prosecution is that the Respondent No.1 was seen by the complainant giving 4 to 5 reservation forms on window no.1. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 purchased 4 to 5 tickets. On suspicion, the complainant who works in Vigilance Crime Branch, caught hold of the Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 informed that said tickets were purchased for respondent no.2. Within short time, respondent no.2 arrived at the spot. Respondent No.2 admitted that he has sent Respondent No.1 for purchasing railway tickets. Respondent No.1 or 2 did not have the licence of railway authority for purchasing and selling railway tickets and yet the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had purchased 4 to 5 tickets for different trains to different destinations in the name of different persons. Hence, they came to be prosecuted under Section 143(b) of the Railway Act. 4. PW 3 Surendrasing who is the panch, has not identified the accused before the Court nor has he mentioned the names of accused persons. There is variance in the evidence of witnesses regarding the seizure panchnama and articles seized. The panch witness is also silent on the point of seizure of [-3-] cash amount. The panch witnesses are unable to state from whom the property was actually seized. Moreover nothing has been stated about the description of the seized property. It is an admitted fact that nothing was seized from the custody of the accused no.2. From the evidence of PW 2 Kate, it is seen that he is not sure about who had prepared the seizure panchnama. Looking to all these facts, the learned Magistrate has observed that seizure panchnama appears to be doubtful. Moreover, no enquiry was made with the persons in whose name the tickets had been purchased. Looking to these and other facts, the learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondents. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. 5. In this view of the matter, application for leave to file appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]