OM PRAKASH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1087 · Decided: 22-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C. R. 1087 
A 
OM PRAKASH 
v 
f' 
' 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2008) 
B 
JANUARY 22, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Railway Properly (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966; ss. 
2(d) and 3: 
c 
Contractor found in possession of cast Iron Grade-II 
Railway properly for transporling unauthorizedly - Trial Court 
found accused guilty of committing offence punishable uls. 3 
of the Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 
one year - Affirmed by first appellate courl and High Coult -
D On appeal, Held: From the evidence on record, accused was 
found in unlawful possession of the goods in question - All 
the ingredients of s.3 established - Hence, no interference 
with the order of Coutts below called for - Since a minimum 
punishment of one year has been prescribed under the 
E provisions, reduction in sentence not allowed - Sentencing -
Reduction in sentence. 
On receipt of an information, Inspector of Police with 
other police personnel went to the Railway Scrap yard 
and found the accused-appellant in possession of cast 
F Iron Grade-I loaded in a truck, allegedly, for transporting 
the same unauthorizedly. Trial Court found the appellant-
7-
• 
contractor guilty of committing offence punishable u/s.3 
of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 
and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year. 
G Appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed by the High 
Court and Revision petition was also dismissed by the 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
, r 
Appellant contended that he was not the owner of 
the goods but was only a labourer; and that the sentence 
H 
1087 
.\ 
OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P 
1088 
may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 From the evidence on record, it was found 
that the presence of Cast Iron Grade-I has not been 
disputed. The stand of the appellant was that somebody B 
else was the auction purchaser of the g'!ods in question 
and he had no role to play, but at all stages, it appears 
that he was present near the truck. He was described as 
the contractor and in his presence the analysis was done, 
and from the material available on record, it is also clear c 
that he, as the contractor, was asked to unload the articles 
and he had called his labourers to unload the articles. 
Therefore, the finding that he was in unlawful possession 
of Cast Iron Grade-I, is a finding which does not warrant 
interference. All the ingredients of s.3 of the Railway D 
Property (Uniawful Possession) Act have been 
established. (Paras - 7, 8 & 11) [1090-C, D, E; 1091-E] 
1.2 So far as the sentence is concerned, for offence 
committed for the first time, a minimum punishment of one 
year has been prescribed. Therefore, the courts below E 
have rightly imposed sentence of one year. (Para - 11) 
State of Maharashtra vs. Vishwanath Tukaram (1979) 4 
sec 23 - referred to. 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
F 
No. 145 of 2008. 
From the Judgment/final Order dated 4.5.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. R. No. 156/2000. 
B.S. Jain, Ajay Veer Singh, Manish Raghav, Anand Mishra G 
and Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta for the Appellant. 
Anil K. Jha for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
..... 
. 1089 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
~ 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing 
the revision petition filed by the appellant under Section 397, 
B 
read with Section 401 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (in 
short 'the Code'). 
3. Challenge in the revision was to the order passed by a 
• 
learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.2060 of 1990 
by which the order of conviction and sentence, as recorded by 
c the learned Additional CJM, was confirmed. 
4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
On getting information on 22.01.1990 that one Truck 
No.UP-93, 1665 of Minakshi Traders was being loaded at scrap 
D yard of Jhansi with Cast Iron Grade-I illegally with the Cast Iron 
Grade-II, the inspector R.K. Rajput, along with Dy. Superintendent 
M.U. Farooki went to the spot and found a Truck No.UP-93-
.\, 
1665 near the Auction Hall which was loaded with Cast Iron 
Grade II. Superintendent lncharge called the Head Constable 
E 878 Taradat Sati and DSK Lala Ram. They were asked to climb 
up the truck and take a l

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.