- (1.) KAMLESHWAR Nath, J. This is an appeal against acquittal of respondent Jogender Singh of an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlaw ful Possession) Act, 1966.
(2.) RESPONDENT, Jogender Singh was employed in the Carriage & Wagon Workshop of the Railways at Lucknow when on 28-4-76 at about 10 p. m. he was intercepted by the Rakshaks of the Railway Protection Force as he was going out of the workshop. It is alleged that an Imamdasta, made of iron, was recovered from his possession, and that the Imamdasta was railway property. It is further alleged that immediately thereafter at about 11 p. m. the respondent's tool box, inside the workshop, was examined, and a few brass and iron articles were found therein. These articles were also alleged to be railway property. Since the respondent had no authority to keep these in his posses sion, he was alleged to have committed the offence. The respondent denied the case. The trial Magistrate held the Imam dasta to be the railway property, but did not find the remaining articles, found in the possession of the respondent, to be the railway property. He conse quently convicted the respondent for the offence under Section 3 of the Act, awarded a sentence of Rs. 1,000 as fine for possession of the Imamdasta, and did not find him guilty in respect of the remaining articles.
(3.) THE matter figured in appeal before the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, who held that there was no cogent and convincing evidence that the Imamdasta was the railway property. He noticed that the property did not bear any railway mark, the there was no evidence that such property was not manufactured by any person other than the railways, or that it could not be available in the open market. THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge also noticed that there was no evidence of the particular place from where the pro perty had been stolen and, therefore, the ingredients of theft too had not been established. On this basis he allowed the appeal, and acquitted the respondent. The learned Government Advocate has urged that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was in error in disbeliving the witnesses simply on the ground that their testimony had been disbelieved in respect of articles found in the respondent's tool-box and, therefore, they ougut not to have been believed in respect of Imamdasta as well. To this extent, the learned Government Advo cate's submission is not without substance. The recovery of the Imamdasta was an independent event, and the recovery of articles in the tool-box was a distinct separate incident. Even though the witnesses were common, one set of evidence is not by itself enough to disredit the evidence in respect of other and separate incident.;