No Railway Property Recovered From 2 Accused: Calcutta HC Quashes RPUP Case Against Them, Finding No Material They Abetted Or Conspired

On 9 March 2019, the Railway Protection Force recovered railway signalling cables and related equipment from premises occupied by co-accused Abdul Sheikh.

The prosecution alleged that Sheikh had obtained the materials from petitioner Prosenjit Mondal, an employee or supervisor of Perfecto Electricals, and filed a prosecution report charging Sheikh under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (“RPUP Act”) and the petitioners under Section 4 for abetment, conspiracy, or connivance.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, arguing, among other things, that no railway property was recovered from them and that the allegations and supporting material did not establish abetment or conspiracy.

The Railway Authorities opposed the application, relying on Sheikh’s statement and other witness statements, and submitted that the proceeding had advanced to the evidence stage.

Section 3(a) of the RPUP Act concerns specified offences involving railway property, while Section 4 penalizes abetment, conspiracy, and wilful connivance by the specified owners or occupiers; “abet” and “conspire” carry the meanings assigned by Sections 107 and 120A IPC respectively.

Abetment requires instigation, intentional aid, or a positive act; mere assertion without such conduct is insufficient (*Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab*, *S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan* and *Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh*).

A conspiracy requires an agreement or meeting of minds, which may be inferred from circumstances, but the circumstances must support the necessary conclusion; a co-accused’s confession cannot alone provide the substantive basis for conviction without independent corroboration (*Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra*, *Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar* and *Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat*).

Under *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*, the High Court may quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC where the allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose an offence or where intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of process.

The Court found no material identifying any positive act by either petitioner that instigated or intentionally aided Sheikh, and considered the prosecution report’s general assertion of abetment and conspiracy insufficient.

Although conspiracy may be inferred from circumstances, the report did not adequately specify the basis for the alleged agreement, and the Court found no coherent chain of circumstances establishing the petitioners’ involvement; it also noted that the co-accused’s confession could not, without independent corroboration, sustain the case against them.

The Court further relied on railway officials’ letters stating that the possibility of financial or material loss to the Railways was ruled out, and on the alleged procedural deficiencies in recording and disclosing the statements relied upon by the prosecution.

It concluded that the material did not justify continuing the proceeding against the petitioners.

It expressed no opinion on the merits of the case against Abdul Sheikh and left the trial against him to proceed independently in accordance with law.

The interim stay was vacated, and the connected application for extension of the interim order was disposed of.