IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.287 and 288 of 2003 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.287 of 2003 Between: Karamathota Kuba Naik ..... PETITIONER (S) AND State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENT(S) CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.288 of 2003 Between: Timmasarthy Rama Rao and another ..... PETITIONER (S) AND State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.287 and 288 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: Petitioners in these two revisions were tried by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways at Vijayawada in C.C.No.29 of 1994 for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Having considered the evidence let in by the prosecution i.e. the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 and Exs.P.1 to P.14, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of the said offence and, accordingly, ordered them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year each. The same was questioned by the petitioners by filing Criminal Appeal Nos.24 and 21 of 1998 and the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada (Fast Track Court), vide his judgment dated 26.02.2003, while confirming the sentence of the trial Court, dismissed the appeals. Hence, the present revisions. Since both these revisions arise out of a common judgment of the trial Court, they are being disposed of together. The facts, in brief, are as follows. The Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Rayanapadu, filed a complaint, against the petitioners and another, by name, Panna Babu Rao against whom the case stood abated on 06.10.1997; in Crime No.7 of 1993 for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Act alleging that on 14.11.1993 at about 11.00 hours G.Madhusudhana Rao (PW.1), SIPF/CIB/BZA, and his staff who apprehended the petitioners and another along with railway property being carried in gunny bags and tied to their cycles, produced them before him under a special report. He then seized the said property and recorded confessional statement of the accused. During investigation, he produced the case property i.e. patching plates seized from the accused before the Chargeman and obtained certificate thereto and thereafter filed the complaint. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that the judgments impugned in these revisions are perfectly justified. In fact, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 would clearly go to show that the petitioners were in unlawful possession of the property belonging to railways, the same was seized by the officials from the petitioners and the property was identified to be the property belonging to railways. When once it is identified that it is the property that belongs to railways and a person is in possession of the same unlawfully, the normal presumption should be that the property is stolen by that person. In the light of the said evidence adduced by the prosecution, the finding of both the Courts below that the petitioners are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Act, in my considered view, is justified and no interference is called for. However, having regard to the fact that the alleged offence took place in the year 1993 and the petitioners as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners were in jail for a period of about 10 days and the trauma that has been faced by them all these years, this Court is of the view that a lenient view may be taken against them and that it is suffice to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of one year, as was imposed by the Courts below, to that of the period already undergone by them, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against them. Except the above modification in the sentence, these Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed in all other aspects. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 22nd July 2010 CVRK