PROSENJIT MONDAL @ PRASENJIT MONDAL AND ANOTHER vs TILAK MITRA AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

CRR 3415 OF 2022
IA NO: CRAN 2 OF 2024

PROSENJIT MONDAL @ PRASENJIT MONDAL AND ANOTHER
-VS-
TILAK MITRA AND ANOTHER

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Ld. Sr. Adv.
Ms. Namrata Chatterjee, Ld. Adv.

For the Union of India : Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu, Ld. Adv.
Mr. Sagar Saha, Ld. Adv.

Reserved on : 09.10.2026
Pronounced on : 12.11.2026

UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

1. By way of this revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners, namely, Prosenjit Mondal
and Kushal Majhi, have invoked the inherent and supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding
arising out of C.R. Case No. 106 of 2019, pending before the Court of
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalna, Purba
Burdwan, corresponding to RPF/Post/Nabadwip Dham Case No. 1 of
2019 dated March 9, 2019, instituted under Sections 3(a) and 4 of the
Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred

2
CRR 3415 OF 2022

to as the "RPUP Act") against one Abdul Sheikh and the petitioners
respectively.
2. The foundational genesis of the prosecution case traces back to March
9, 2019, when pursuant to source information, a raid was conducted by
the Railway Protection Force (RPF) team led by SI Tilak Mitra at the
residential premises of one Abdul Sheikh at Paruldanga. During the
said raid, although the principal occupant Abdul Sheikh managed to
flee, the RPF officers allegedly recovered 315 pieces of 12-core signal
cables, stripped cable skin weighing 25 kgs, an electric wall cutter, an
extension board, and cutting wheels from the space attached to his
house. Upon examination by railway engineering officials, the seized
materials were certified to be exclusive Indian Railway signalling cables.
Consequently, RPF Case No. 1 of 2019 was registered under Section
3(a) of the RPUP Act against the absconding Abdul Sheikh.
3. The investigation subsequently drifted toward the present petitioners.
The co-accused Abdul Sheikh was arrested on March 13, 2019, and
during his interrogation, he purportedly disclosed that the seized
materials were unlawfully procured from the petitioner No. 1, Prosenjit
Mondal, who was working as a supervisor/employee of Perfecto
Electricals , by paying a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Following a protracted
inquiry spanning several weeks wherein summons were issued to
various contractors, railway engineers, and site supervisors, the
Enquiry Officer ultimately submitted a Prosecution Report on
September 12, 2019, before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kalna, seeking cognizance under Section 3(a) against Abdul

3
CRR 3415 OF 2022

Sheikh and under Section 4 of the RPUP Act against the present
petitioners for abetment, conspiracy, and connivance.
4. Assailing the legality and sustainability of the said proceeding, Mr.
Sourav Chatterjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioners
strenuously argues that the continuation of the criminal proceeding
against the petitioners is an absolute abuse of the process of Court on
several distinct and formidable grounds. Firstly , it is an admitted and
undisputed position that not a single piece of railway property was
recovered either from the physical possession, personal search, or
residential premises of the petitioners. The entire recovery was effected
exclusively from the dwelling house of the co-accused Abdul Sheikh.
Secondly , it is submitted that Section 3(a) of the RPUP Act deals with
actual theft, dishonest misappropriation, or unlawful possession of
railway property, which can by no stretch of imagination be fastened
upon the petitioners in the total absence of any physical recovery.
Thirdly , as regards Section 4 of the RPUP Act which penalizes abetment,
conspiracy, and connivance by importing the definitions under Section
107 and Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, learned counsel
contends that the prosecution report is completely bereft of any tangible
material or legal foundation demonstrating a prior meeting of minds,
active instigation, or illegal omission on the part of the petitioners.
Fourthly , drawing the attention of this Court to the prosecution's own
relied-upon documents (specifically the official letters of Sri A. Sinha
and Sri D.K. Singh, Senior Section Engineers), it is urged that the
possibility of incurring any financial or material loss to the railway

4
CRR 3415 OF 2022

administration has been categorically ruled out and eliminated, thereby
destroying the foundational bedrock of a property-related offence.
Fifthly , Mr. Chatterjee raises a grave procedural objection, pointing out
that the alleged confessional statements relied upon by the prosecution
were neither included in the statutory list of relied-upon documents
forwarded to the learned Magistrate nor were the mandatory procedural
safeguards, pre-requisites, and precautions ordained under Chapter 1,
Regulation 26.2 of the RPF Crime Manual (such as recording of the
confession in the accused's own handwriting, maintaining a non-
uniformed peaceful atmosphere, prior medical examination, and
attestation by independent witnesses) complied with.
5. Per contra , Mr. Kallol Basu, learned counsel representing the opposite
parties (Railway Authorities and the State) stoutly defends the
continuation of the proceeding and submits that a strong prima facie
case for trial has been well established against the petitioners. It is
contended that an inquiry conducted under Section 8 of the RPUP Act
partakes a judicial character by virtue of Section 9(4) of the Act, and the
statements recorded therein are signed judicial records carrying distinct
evidentiary value compared to statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. Placing reliance on the confessional statement of the co-accused
Abdul Sheikh, who did not file any retraction petition before the learned
Magistrate, coupled with the corroborative statements of independent
witnesses and railway personnel such as Pritam Kumar, Amitava Sinha,
Lalit Kothari, and Uttam Ghosh, the opposite parties argue that the
petitioners actively managed material dispatches and site registers for

5
CRR 3415 OF 2022

Perfecto Electricals . Relying upon the authoritative pronouncements of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of
Maharashtra, [(2008) 10 SCC 394] and Mahammad Khalid v. State of
West Bengal, [(2002) 7 SCC 334], learned counsel for the opposite
parties submits that in cases of criminal conspiracy, direct proof of an
agreement is rarely available, and its existence and objectives are to be
inferred from surrounding circumstances, conduct, and inter-se
association. Furthermore, it is contended that physical presence at the
spot of recovery is not a sine qua non for establishing a conspiracy
under Section 4 of the RPUP Act, and since the proceeding before the
learned Magistrate since has progressed to the stage of recording of
evidence, this Court ought not to interfere at this juncture to quash the
proceeding.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties at length
and upon a meticulous perusal of the application, the prosecution
report, the supplementary affidavits, and the judicial precedents cited
at the Bar, this Court must now weigh the rival submissions on the
touchstone of settled principles governing the quashing of criminal
proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
decide the instant revisional application.
7. At the very threshold, it is apposite to examine the exact contours of the
penal provisions invoked against the petitioners. The prosecution report
seeks to rope in the petitioners under Section 4 of the RPUP Act, while
the principal recovery was made from Abdul Sheikh, who alone stands
charged under Section 3(a). Section 4 of the RPUP Act reads as follows:

6
CRR 3415 OF 2022

"4. Punishment for abetment, conspiracy or connivance at
offences —Whoever abets or conspires in the commission of an
offence punishable under this Act, or any owner or occupier of
land or building, or any agent of such owner or occupier in charge
of the management of that land or building, who wilfully connives
at an offence against the provisions of this Act, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
five years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation. – For the purposes of this Section, the word “abet”
and “conspire” shall have the same meanings as assigned to
them respectively in sections 107 and 120A of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860).”
8. A plain reading of aforesaid Section 4 makes it luminously clear that
the statute penalizes three distinct modes of secondary participation: (i)
abetment, (ii) criminal conspiracy, and (iii) wilful connivance by
owners/occupiers of land or buildings. Since the petitioners are
admittedly neither owners nor occupiers of the land/building where the
recovery was effected, their culpability must stand or fall on the
touchstone of abetment (defined under Section 107 IPC) or criminal
conspiracy (defined under Section 120A IPC).
9. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence, as authoritatively
expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State
of Punjab , [(2020) 10 SCC 200], that abetment involves a positive
mental process of instigation, intentional aiding, or illegal omission. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision, has further observed that
to constitute the offence of ‘abetment’ as defined under Section 107 IPC,
there must be a direct instigation or intentional aiding or a positive act

7
CRR 3415 OF 2022

on the part of the accused. Without a positive act of incitement or active
facilitation, no criminal liability for abetment can be fastened.
10. Similarly, in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., [(2010) 12
SCC 190], the Apex Court in paragraph 25 of the said report, has held:
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing offence, a conviction cannot be sustained."
11. Furthermore, in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, [(2001) 9 SCC
618], a three-judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court underscored
that instigation must have a direct nexus with the consequential act.
12. Adverting to the factual matrix of the present case, this Court finds an
absolute vacuum of any material demonstrating a positive act of
instigation or intentional aiding by the petitioners qua Abdul Sheikh.
Apart from a vague, perfunctory, and conclusionary assertion at the
tail-end of the prosecution report stating that the petitioners "have
connived by committing abet and conspire," the prosecution has failed
to bring forth any independent, reliable material indicating how, when,
or in what manner the petitioners incited, goaded, or provoked the
principal accused to commit the offence punishable under Section 3(a)
of the RPUP Act. A bald, recycled formula of words in police or RPF
report cannot substitute for legal proof or provide a foundation for
criminal trial.
13. Turning to the alternative limb of Section 4 namely, criminal
conspiracy, the opposite parties have placed heavy reliance on the

8
CRR 3415 OF 2022

decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish
Joshi (supra) and Mahammad Khalid (supra) to contend that direct proof
of a meeting of minds is not necessary and that conspiracy can be
inferred from surrounding circumstances. This Court is fully conscious
of the legal proposition that criminal conspiracies are hatched in
secrecy and direct evidence is seldom available. The relevant
paragraphs 20 and 25 of Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi (supra) aptly
lay down:
" 20. The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are:
(i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement
must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It
is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for
doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means
is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. …… a conspiracy is always
hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of
the common intention of the conspirators. Therefore, the meeting of
minds of the conspirators can be inferred from the circumstances
proved by the prosecution, if such inference is possible.
….
25. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more
persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua
non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove
the agreement between them by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence
of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the
incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which
a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. It is well
settled that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and

9
CRR 3415 OF 2022

renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable, even
if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement.
However, even while acknowledging this principle, the law is equally
well settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Haricharan Kurmi & Anr. v. State of Bihar, [1964 SCC OnLine SC 28],
and subsequently reiterated in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State
of Gujarat & Anr., [(2019) 16 SCC 547], that the incriminating
circumstances must form a coherent, unbroken chain of events
pointing unerringly toward the guilt of the accused, and the confession
of a co-accused cannot form the sole substantive basis for conviction
without independent corroborative evidence. In the instant case, the
prosecution report does not even specify whether the petitioners are
sought to be hauled up for abetment, for conspiracy, or for both
simultaneously, thereby exposing the patent vagueness, frivolity, and
non-application of mind in drafting the report.
14. What further demolishes the prosecution's superstructure is the
documentary evidence emanating from the railway authorities
themselves. Enclosure "B" to the petition and the Supplementary
Affidavit contain official communications from Senior Section Engineers
(Sri A. Sinha, SSE/Sig/Con/HWH dated May 27, 2019, and Sri D.K.
Singh, SSE/ Sig/Con/BDC dated May 20, 2019).
15. A bare perusal of Sri A. Sinha's letter and Sri D.K. Singh's letter
addressed to the Enquiry Officer categorically records that ‘ the
possibility of incurring any financial or material loss to the railways is
ruled out and eliminated ’. When the foundational essence of a property-

10
CRR 3415 OF 2022

related penal statute namely, wrongful loss, deprivation, or deficiency of
railway property is completely negated by the prosecution's own relied-
upon official documents, the continuation of criminal proceedings
against these petitioners is nothing short of an abuse of the process of
Court.
16. Moreover, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the serious procedural
infractions surrounding the alleged confessional statements. While the
opposite parties rely heavily upon statements recorded during the
inquiry under Section 8 of the RPUP Act, it is not disputed that the
purported statement of Petitioner No. 2, Kushal Majhi, does not even
form part of the statutory list of relied-upon documents furnished to the
learned Magistrate. More importantly, Chapter 1, Regulation 26.2 of the
RPF Crime Manual lays down mandatory, meticulous safeguards for
recording confessions—including recording in the accused's own
handwriting, maintaining a non-coercive and non-uniformed
atmosphere, securing independent witness signatures, and conducting
mandatory prior medical examinations. A bare comparison of the record
reveals a flagrant, wholesale breach of these departmental safeguards.
A statement extracted in patent violation of departmental manual
instructions cannot be countenanced in a court of law to imperil the
liberty of citizens.
17. The judicial parameters governing the exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings are well-
established, as classically articulated in the landmark decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.,

11
CRR 3415 OF 2022

[1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused, or where the
proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court is duty-bound to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of the process of
any court.
18. In the light of the comprehensive evaluation of facts, law, and judicial
precedents, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the
continuation of the criminal proceeding in C.R. Case No. 106 of 2019
arising out of RPF/Post/Nabadwip Dham Case No. 1 of 2019 dated
March 09, 2019, pending before the Court of the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalna, Purba Burdwan, qua the present
petitioners, Prosenjit Mondal and Kushal Majhi, would result in a gross
miscarriage of justice.
19. Accordingly, the revisional application being C.R.R. No. 3415 of 2022
stands allowed .

20. The impugned criminal proceeding being C.R. Case No. 106 of 2019
pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kalna, Purba Burdwan, arising out of RPF/Post/Nabadwip
Dham Case No. 1 of 2019 dated March 09, 2019 , under Sections 3(a)
and 4 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, along
with all orders passed therein, are hereby quashed so far as the

12
CRR 3415 OF 2022

present petitioners, Prosenjit Mondal and Kushal Majhi, are
concerned.
21. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the case insofar as the remaining principal accused,
Abdul Sheikh, is concerned, and the learned Trial Court shall be at
liberty to proceed with the trial against him independently in
accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this
judgment.
22. The interim order of stay, if operating, stands vacated.
23. CRAN 2 of 2024, an application for extension of interim order, is also
disposed of accordingly.
24. There shall be no order as to costs.
25. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court Records (T.C.R.)
be transmitted to the learned Trial Court forthwith for necessary
information and compliance.
26. Case diary, be returned to the Learned Counsel for the State.
27. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Uday Kumar, J.)