Section 3 requires proof of conscious possession; mere proximity to stolen material is insufficient.

The appellants were convicted under Section 3(a) of the Orissa Electric Supply Line Material (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1988, and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine each.

The prosecution alleged that, during a night raid in a forest, police found the appellants in a jeep near aluminium wire said to have been cut from an electric line.

The wire was found bundled or scattered in the forest; hacksaws, ropes and small pieces of aluminium conductor were recovered from the jeep.

The trial court convicted the appellants under the Act but acquitted them of the charge under Sections 397/34 IPC.

On appeal, the appellants contended that the prosecution had not proved their possession of the wire.

Whether the prosecution proved that the appellants were in possession of the aluminium wire, as required to attract Section 3 of the Act.

Whether the appellants’ presence near the wire, the articles found in the jeep, and their failure to explain their presence or other circumstances could sustain the conviction despite the absence of proof of possession.

Section 3 of the Orissa Electric Supply Line Material (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1988 applies where a person is found in possession of electric supply-line material reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained or retained; proof of possession is the foundational requirement before the statutory burden to establish lawful possession can arise.

Mere proximity to the material is insufficient without evidence establishing conscious possession, dominion or control.

The prosecution retains the primary burden of proving the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt; an accused’s failure to explain circumstances cannot cure a failure to establish those ingredients.

The court found that the wire was seized from the forest, not from the appellants or their jeep, and that the prosecution had not established a direct link between the appellants and the wire.

Their presence in the forest and the recovery of tools, ropes and conductor pieces from the jeep could raise suspicion, but did not prove conscious possession of the seized wire.

The trial court therefore erred in relying on the appellants’ failure to explain their presence, blackish palms or an injury before the prosecution had proved the foundational fact of possession.

The acquittal on the IPC charge did not itself decide the statutory charge, but the alleged theft could not substitute for independent proof of possession under the Act.

It set aside the convictions under Section 3(a), acquitted the appellants, discharged any bail bonds and allowed the appeal.