- (1.) The above captioned two criminal revision petitions had arisen from a judgment dated 24.07.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala in Criminal Appeals No.42 and 96 of 2004 upholding the judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 24.12.2003 passed by Special Railway Magistrate, (Haryana), Ambala Cantt. in Criminal Complaint No.17 dated 18.05.1994 under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (for short, "Railway Act") registered at Police Station RPF/OP/Jagadhri vide which petitioners Pritam Pal and Pritam Singh alongwith one Ved Pal son of Raghubir Singh were held guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each.
(2.) The facts relevant for being noticed are as under:- On 18.05.1994 at around 1:00 p.m., ASI Ram Kishan, G.R.P., Jagadhri on receipt of message of ASI Balbir Singh, Police Station Farakpur that some persons after cutting Eucalyptus trees were loading them in a cart, reached at the spot and arrested two persons carrying eight number wooden pieces. On enquiry they disclosed their names as Pritam Pal son of Kalu Ram and Pritam Singh son of Vilayati Ram and stated that they were working with Railway Contractor Ved Pal on hire basis of Rs.100/- for carrying wooden pieces. Since the stolen property was of railway, information was given to RPF Post Jagadhri on which ASI Ram Kishan alongwith other police officials reached the spot and found that eight wooden pieces of four Eucalyptus trees were being carried away by Pritam Pal and Pritam Singh. The stolen property was taken in possession and petitioners were arrested. The place from where trees were allegedly cut was got identified. Samples from the wooden pieces were taken and sent to Wood Anatomy, Botany Division, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun (UP) for verification and as per scientist report three samples were of the same tree and one piece was different. During interrogation, petitioners suffered disclosure statements. Accused Ved Pal seeing the police party had fled away from the spot and was arrested on 20.05.1994 by Sub Inspector R.P. Singh. He also suffered a disclosure statement and in pursuance of the same got recovered an axe used by him for cutting the trees, which was taken into possession. On completion of investigation and other formalities the complaint was sent to the Court for trial. The petitioners alongwith accused Ved Pal were chargesheeted under Section 3 of the Railway Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(3.) The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses to substantiate its charge against the petitioners-accused. After closure of evidence of the prosecution, statements of petitioners-accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") were recorded by putting to them the incriminating evidence available on record, which they denied and pleaded false implication. Analyzing the evidence available on record and the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the petitioners-accused, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 24.12.2003 passed by learned trial court, the petitioners-accused preferred three separate appeals which were dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide judgment dated 24.07.2006. Still unsatisfied, the petitioners have preferred the instant criminal revisions.;