Proof of possession of suspected stolen railway property shifts the burden to the accused to establish lawful possession.

On 31 January 2002, Railway Protection Force personnel conducting night patrol in a railway yard intercepted the respondent while he was carrying railway materials.

A connecting-end pull rod, an operating-handled rod and a welded T-rod, allegedly used as railway-wagon fittings, were recovered from his possession and seized.

The respondent could not produce any document or authority explaining lawful possession.

He was charged under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

The prosecution examined six witnesses and produced the seizure list, expert report and seized articles.

The Trial Court accepted the evidence regarding interception, recovery and seizure, but acquitted the respondent on the ground that the expert evidence did not conclusively establish that the articles were railway property.

The appellant challenged the acquittal before the High Court.

1. Whether the prosecution proved that the articles recovered from the respondent were “railway property” within the meaning of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

2. Whether the prosecution established that the respondent was found in possession of railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained, thereby shifting the burden upon him to account for lawful possession under Section 3 of the Act.

3. Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was vitiated by misappreciation of evidence and misapplication of Section 3 of the Act, warranting appellate interference.

4. If the respondent was liable to be convicted, what sentence would meet the ends of justice in view of the approximately twenty-four-year delay and his advanced age.

The Court applied Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, under which a person found or proved to have been in possession of railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained is punishable unless he proves that the property came into his possession lawfully.

The Court relied on the statutory requirements identified in State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale, (1979) 4 SCC 23: the property must be railway property, it must reasonably be suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained, and the accused must be found or proved to have been in possession of it.

Once these foundational facts are established, the burden shifts to the accused to explain lawful possession.

The Court also referred to A.N. Pandey v. Gopal Das & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 2142, and State of U.P. v. Ram Das, 1976 SCC OnLine All 57, as relied upon by the appellant.

Official witnesses are not to be disbelieved merely because of their official status, absent material reasons to doubt their credibility.

In sentencing, the Court considered the constitutional significance of speedy trial under Article 21 and the effect of extraordinary delay on the proportionality of punishment.

The High Court found that PW1, PW2 and PW3 consistently proved the interception, recovery and seizure, and that the Trial Court itself had accepted this evidence.

Exhibit-3, read with PW5’s testimony, expressly identified the seized articles as Indian Railway property used in the Railway Department, in serviceable condition, not auctionable and not ordinarily available in the open market.

The Court held that PW5’s inability in cross-examination to connect the articles by a case number did not outweigh the clear opinion recorded in the expert report.

The absence of a separate theft complaint, the alleged openness of the railway yard, and the failure to record the weight of the articles did not displace the otherwise consistent evidence of possession and seizure.

Once possession of railway property under circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion was proved, Section 3 placed the burden on the respondent to establish lawful possession.

He neither adduced defence evidence nor offered a plausible explanation in his examination under Section 313 CrPC.

The Trial Court therefore erred in granting benefit of doubt solely on the perceived weakness of the expert evidence.

The acquittal dated 28 February 2005 in Case No. CR 50/2002 was set aside.

The respondent was convicted under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and sentenced to pay a fine of ₹10,000 within four months; in default, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.