Conviction for unlawful possession of railway property upheld; sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

On the night of 23/24 February 2014, RPF personnel conducting patrol near the goods shed at Sahibganj allegedly saw three persons carrying heavy articles towards the river Ganga.

One person, identified as petitioner Uday Sahani, was apprehended, while the other two allegedly fled after discarding material wrapped in polythene bags.

Three CST-9 plates were recovered and were alleged to be railway property.

An RPF case was registered under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (“R.P.(U.P.) Act”).

Following investigation, the petitioners were charged, tried, and convicted by the Trial Court in RPS Case No. 01 of 2014 corresponding to T.R. No. 68 of 2016.

Each was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year on 16 September 2016.

The Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, affirmed the conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2016 on 28 July 2017.

In revision, the petitioners did not challenge the conviction on merits and confined their submissions to reduction of sentence, relying on their custody of approximately two months, the age of the case, absence of criminal antecedents, and good conduct during the pendency of proceedings.

Whether the concurrent findings that the petitioners were in unlawful possession of railway property, constituting an offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act, warranted interference in criminal revision?

Whether, in view of the petitioners’ period of custody already undergone, absence of criminal antecedents, conduct during the proceedings, and the lapse of more than twelve years since the occurrence, the sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment should be reduced?

The Court applied Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, which penalises possession of railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained when the accused fails to satisfactorily account for such possession.

The Court also applied the revisional principle that concurrent findings of fact, particularly where supported by evidence and not shown to be perverse or illegal, ordinarily should not be disturbed.

In determining sentence, the Court considered the circumstances of the offence and the offender, including the period already undergone, the prolonged pendency of the case, absence of criminal antecedents, and subsequent conduct.

No judicial precedent was expressly relied upon in the judgment.

The Court found that the prosecution evidence, including the seizure list, witness testimony, the enquiry officer’s evidence, the expert opinion, and the seized CST-9 plates, established that the articles were railway property and were not available in the open market.

The petitioners offered no satisfactory explanation for their possession, and the evidence was held sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act.

Since the petitioners themselves did not challenge the conviction on merits and the Trial Court and Appellate Court had recorded concurrent findings, the Court declined to interfere with the conviction.

However, considering that the occurrence took place in 2014, more than twelve years had elapsed, the petitioners had no other criminal background, had not engaged in further criminal activity during the litigation, and had already undergone approximately two months’ custody, the Court exercised its sentencing discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.

The petitioners’ conviction under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act was upheld and confirmed, but the sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment was modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone.

Any pending interlocutory application was disposed of, and the Trial Court records were directed to be returned to the concerned court.