- (1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and order D/-16th of December, 1969 passed, by Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.
(2.) THE facts leading up to the present appeal can briefly be stated as under: The respondent, during the period in question, was employed as a Loco-shed Driver in the North Eastern Railway at Gorakhpur. On 24th of September 1968 Sri S. L. Mehta and Sri R. S. Pandey, Sub-Inspectors, C. I. D. took a search of his house and recovered a Large amount of property, which according to the prosecution belonged to the railway administration. It included a green dari (Exh. II), a mosquito curtain (Exh. III), four pillow cases (Exhs. V to VIII), 33 Engine headlight bulbs of 250 Watts (Exh. XIII), 5 bulbs of 32 Watts (Exh. XIV), 11 bulbs of 24 Watts (Exh. XV), 2 stainless tumblers (Exh. XVIII) and I bucket (Ext. XIX), all of which carried the I. R. (Indian Railways) mark. A memo was prepared in evidence of that recovery. A charge-sheet in due course was submitted for the prosecution of the respondent for the offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. The respondent in his statement in the trial court first denied the entire prosecution case and said that he had enmity with. Indra Bahadur Singh, Driver, and a Constable of the R. P. F. and that both of them had colluded to get him falsely implicated in this case. At the stage of Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code the respondent stated that the entire recovered property was planted on him in collusion with Indra Bahadur Singh, Driver and the Constable of the R. P. F.
(3.) THE prosecution examined nine witnesses in the case. Sri S. L. Mehta, S. I. (P. W. 1) and Rama Shanker Pandey, S. I. (P. W. 2) deposed about the recovery of the aforesaid articles from the possession of the respondent. Prahlad (P. W. 3), Dina Nath (P. W. 4) and Ram Vriksh (P. W. 5) were also examined to prove the same fact but they turned hostile and did not support it. Shambhu Nath (P. W. 6) gave evidence about the articles that were issued to the respon dent from the locoshed. Sri R. P. Srivastava (P. W. 7) and Sri S. N. Datta (P. W. 8) were examined to prove that the articles recovered from the possession of respondent were railway property. Uma Shanker Upadhya (P. W. 9) gave evidence of a purely formal nature. The respondent did not examine any witness in his defence.;