LexKASHMIRI LAL versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F KASHMIRI LAL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH September 2, 1969 (S. M. SIKRI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] , Railway Stores (Unlawful possession) Act (51 of 1955), ss. 2 and 3- 'Ruilway Stores', what are-Off.ence under s. 3-Jngredienrs and proof. A large nu1nber of parts of machinery bearing railway marks, con· tained in bags of metal scrap booked for transport by lorry by the appellant, was seized by the Railway police and the appellant was charged with an offence under s. 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955. The expert on railway machinery parts· certified that the goods were un· auctionable, sugg~sting tl'tat they could not have been auctioned and law· fully purchased by any third party, but in court, he gave evidence and made a categorical statement that he could not say if the articles were auctioned in the market or not. The appellant was convicted and the conviction was confirmed. by the High Court. In appeal to this Court, HELD : Before anyone can be charged with the offence under s. 3. the prosecution must show that the articles in his possession are 'railway stores' as defined ins. 2, that is : (i) that the articles are the property of a railway administration (though it is not necessary to prove that they be- long to any particular railway administration); and (ii) that they are used or intended to be used in the construction, operation or maintenance of a railway. The prosecution must- also show that there was cause for reason- able suspicion of the stores having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. Evidence that the goodi conformed to the railway standards, or that they were new, falls short o the requisite proof, because, an ar_ticle, though it is the property of a railway administration would not be 'railway stores' if the article has been discarded or rejected as .~sek:ss. Since the evidence in this case did not establish that the goods were used or intended to be used in the construction, operation or maintenance of a railway the charge must fail. [188 D-F, E-H; 189 F-H] Moya/al Rostagir v. State, 66 C.W'I. 269, approved. Observations contra in Udaya Dalai v. State, 30 Cuttack L.T. 275, dis- approved. G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 65N of 1968. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October 5, 1967 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Revision No. 152 of 1966. ff A. S. R. Chari, R. K. Garg, R. A. Gupta anc'. S. C. Agarwal, for the appellant. H. R. Khanna and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1970] 2 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellant chal- lenges his conviction under s. 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955. The Act is a measure providing for punishment of persons in unlawful possession of railway stores who cannot satisfactorily account how they came by the same. By section 2 "railway store.>" are defined to mei> 'l any article--( a) which is the pro- perty of any railway administration, and (b) which is used or intended to be used in the construction, operation or maintenance of a railway. Section 3 defines the offence as also the measure of punishment therefor. It reads : "If any person is found, or is proved to have been in possession of any article of railway stores reasonably suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained, and cannot account satisfactorily how he came by the same, he shall be punishable with impri- sonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both." Before anyone can be charged with the offence under s. 3 it must be shown that he was in possession of railway stores which by the definition of section does not include all articles which are the property of a railway administration but only those which are uo.ed or intended to be used in the construction, operation or maintenance of a railway. Mere unlawful possession of the property of any railway administration is not an offence: The prosecution must also prove that th.~ articles were being actually used or were intended to be used for by the railway. Thus any article which is the property of a railway administration but which bas been discarded or rejected for further use would be outside the definition of railway stores. ~ailway stores may be new or old and an offence may be committed in resp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.