1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 407 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 201O. (Union of India .v. Ashwin Govindrao Bokade) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Vandan Gadkari, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 07TH DECEMBER, 2010. Heard. This is an application for leave to appeal filed by the applicant/appellant challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the learned Railway Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 02nd November, 2009 in Regular Criminal Case No. 89/2009. The respondent/accused was charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was apprehended by two railway police personnel namely Gaurishankar Hedley and Pawar at Washing Side, Near Over Bridge, Railway Yard, Nagpur. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of railway property namely 18 pieces of pendal clip, four covers of railway fan and nine railway line keys. The learned Magistrate, on consideration of the evidence, found that the prosecution was unable to prove the necessary ingredients to secure conviction of the accused namely, (i) the offence has been committed in respect of the railway property; (ii) the accused was found in possession of railway property; and (iii) that the accused reasonably believed to have stolen or unlawfully obtained such property. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are namely one Mr. Khelkar (PW-4) and Mr. Batham (PW-3). In their evidence, it is admitted that they have signed upon the slip and 2 label affixed upon the property. In the cross-examination of PW-4 Mr. Khelkar, it was admitted that the certificate (Exh.11) is without the seal of his office. The learned Magistrate while recording the evidence of PW-4 Mr. Khelkar, took the judicial note of the fact that the articles were without any label. It is also observed by the learned Magistrate that the seizure of the muddemal property was not prepared on the spot itself and it was prepared at RPF Thana. The complaint is silent about the description of the muddemal property. The panch witnesses are the interested panchas who are running their business at the Railway Station itself. There are material omissions in the versions of the witnesses. No independent witnesses were brought by the prosecution agency and the witnesses were only those who were carrying out their business at Railway Station, namely, one Babulal Bamlele who is auto rickshaw driver running his auto rickshaw at Railway Station and acted as witness for RPF in many cases. There is no explanation as to why the seizure panchnama of the muddemal property was prepared at Railway Police Force Thana when it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was apprehended with the material at the place namely Washing Side, Near Over Bridge, Railway Yard, Nagpur. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. No fault can be found with the view taken by the learned Magistrate nor it can be said that the judgment is rendered without considering evidence on record. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that no leave can be granted and as such leave refused, resultantly the appeal fails. JUDGE *rrg.