- (1.) R. P Nigam, J. This Criminal ap peal has been preferred against the judg ment and order dated 17-3-1983 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Northern Railways Lucknow in criminal case No. 16 of 1979 State v. Shafiullah by which the respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution as dis closed in the report (complaint) given by Ram Dev Singh, Sub- Inspector on 17-11-1978 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Northern Railway Lucknow is as follows: "rakshaks Haridwar Singh, Raghunan dan Prasad Pandey and Khadim Rasool recovered one dynamo belt from the possession of the accused-respondent Shafiullah on 22-10-1978 at about 7. 00 a. m. at Gate No. 4 running road Northern Railways Lucknow and the ac cused had no authority to keep the said dynamo belt and as the said dynamo bell which was the property of Railway was recovered from the possession of the accused-respondent and, therefore, the accused-respondent committed an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and that is why the complaint was filed against the respondent after making necessary en quiries and collection of evidence. " The accused respondent was charged under Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, by the Court below. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the respondent examined Sri K. N. Sharma as P. W. 1, Haridwar Singh as P. W. 2, Khadim Rasul as P. W. 3, R. D. Singh as P. W. 4, Raghunandan Prasad Pandey as P. W. 5, A. K. Chhaterji as P. W. 6 and Sri Brij Nandan Singh as P. W. 7. The prosecution had relied upon recovery memo Ex. Ka-4 and other papers.
(3.) THE accused respondent denied the prosecution case and pleaded not guilty. He stated that the case had been filed against him on account of mis-under standing and he was falsely implicated on account of enmity and the witnesses deposed falsely against him. He further stated that Abrar Ahmad Foreman was forced to sit in R. P. F post and he inter vened in the matter and that is why on account of enmity he was falsely implicated. THE accused respondent did not lend any evidence in his defence. The learned Court below after con sidering the evidence adduced in the case had held that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Posses sion) Act with which he was charged on 17-3-1983 and against the. judgment and order of acquittal of respondent, the State of U. P. has preferred this appeal.;