THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2097 of 2004 BETWEEEN: The S.I., P.F., Vizianagaram … Appellant AND Dadari Narayana Rao … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2097 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The State filed this appeal against order of acquittal of the accused/respondent recorded by the lower Court of the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (in short, the Act). It is alleged that on 06.07.2001 at 3:30 P.M., on reliable information, PW1 who is Assistant Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection force along with constable including PW3, conducted raid and check in welding shop of the accused located in V.T.Agraharam and found MOs. 1 to 3 rail pieces in the said welding shop and that the accused failed to produce proper authority or receipt for possession of the said objects and that PW1 seized the said cut rail pieces from the accused under the cover of Ex.P1 seizure list in the presence of mediator, PW4. Plea of the accused is one of total denial and not guilty. 2. It is contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor that order of acquittal recorded by the lower Court is perverse and unjust and is liable to be reversed in this appeal. The prosecution examined PW2, who is the competent expert to speak about nature of MOs 1 to 3. After examining MOs 1 to 3, PW2 gave Ex.P3 certificate, opining that MOs 1 and 3 are properties belonging to Indian Railways and that MO.2 may not be the property belonging to Indian Railways and that MOs.1 and 3 are not the properties available in open market for sale. The lower Court rightly held that MOs 1 and 3 are railway property. 3. With regard to seizure of MOs 1 to 3 from shop of the accused at V.T.Agraharam, PW4 turned hostile to the prosecution. It is his evidence that he does not know the accused and that nothing was seized from possession of anybody in his presence and that he does not know contents of Ex.P1 seizure list. He says that the Police obtained his signature on a blank paper. PW4 did not give any reason as to why and what prompted him to sign on a blank paper at the instance of the Police. It is not as if PW4 has got any obligation or fear for the Police or Railway Protection Force. It is not his case that he was involved in any criminal cases previously so that he has got fear for the Police. Having signed in Ex.P1 voluntarily, PW4 wants the Court to believe that he signed therein when it was blank. It is evident that PW4 was won over by the accused for consideration. Simply because the mediator, PW4 turned hostile to the prosecution, the entire prosecution case is not liable to be thrown out. If this tendency is permitted, then it would not be the Courts which decide the case, but it would be those mediators who decide fate of a criminal case and it would not be in the interest of administration of criminal justice system. 4. The lower Court rejected evidence of PWs 1 and 3 on the ground that there was discrepancy with regard to timings in their evidence. It is the prosecution case that they raided on shop of the accused and seizure was at about 3:30 P.M. on 06.07.2001. PWs 1 and 3 spoke about the entire prosecution case regarding raid and check in welding shop of the accused and finding Mos.1 to 3 cut rail pieces in that shop and seizing the same as the accused could not properly account for them. The lower Court commented that PWs 1 and 3 did not give timing accurately. It is evidence of PW1 that source of information was at 2:10 P.M. and he interrogated the accused at 2:30 P.M. The lower Court failed to note that receipt of information, starting of raid, reaching shop of the accused at V.T.Agraharam, checking shop of the accused, interrogating the accused and seizing Mos.1 to 3 from the shop cannot be at one and the same time mentioned in Ex.P1 seizure list. Simply because there is slight discrepancy in timings given by PWs 1 and 3, the lower Court should not have disbelieved their evidence. One cannot expect to give timings in Court with mathematical precession. The reasoning given by the lower Court in disbelieving evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is perverse, highly unreasonable and wholly unjust. The evidence on record clearly proved guilt of the accused to the effect that the accused was possessing Mos.1 and 3 cut rail pieces which are the railway property without any proper authority or receipt for their possession. 5. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment passed by the lower Court and convicting the accused/respondent under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. In view of quantity of the property seized in this case, the accused/respondent is awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one month. ______________________________​____ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:21.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2097 of 2004 Dt:21.12.2011 ysk