P.K. Mohanty, J.@mdashHeard the learned Additional Government for the State appellant. None appears for the accused-respondents.
2. This Government Appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Cuttack in 2(c) CC
No. 355 of 1983 (Trial Case No. 170 of 1984), in a case u/s 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.
3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 3.10.1983 at 2 a.m. while P.Ws. 1 & 3 were performing their duty at Balikuda Railway Station,
they found four persons running away from Northern side of the signal post of the railway station. They followed and focused torch-light on them
but seeing them two of those persons who were holding bags threw the same on the ground. They seized the bags and produced the same before
the Assistant Station Master, Balikuda Railway Station. On receiving telephonic call from the Assistant Station Master, Officer-in-charge, R.P.F.,
Cuttack reached the spot. Written complaint (Ext. 1) was lodged and seven numbers of Signal Relays were produced before him. Respondent
Babaji Charan Sahoo was apprehended on the very same day at 6 p.m. and on interrogation he is said to have admitted that he along with accused
Basant Kumar Samataray, Arakhita and Keshab had committed theft of relays from the location box. Accused-respondent Babaji gave a
confessional statement which was reduced to writing which has been marked as Ext. 5 and his signature has been marked as Ext. 5/1. Accused
Basant was apprehended by the Railway Police at 3 a.m. on 3.10.1983 being led by respondent Babaji and on interrogation he confessed his guilt
and stated that he had concealed the relay and copper wire in the pond situated at the back side of Balikuda Petrol Pump. Basant led the police
party to the pond and on search they recovered the copper wire and six numbers of Nuts made of brass and seized the same under seizure list Ext.
6. The seized articles were inspected by the Signal Inspector, an expert, who gave opinion that those were railway properties.
4. The accused persons took the plea of denial.
5. The prosecution examined six witnesses and no one was examined on behalf of the accused persons.
6. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the confessional statements which did not contain the date, time, place and name or signature of the
witnesses present at the time of recording of such statements and on consideration of the fact that the pond from which recovery was given by the
accused was just adjacent to the Petrol Pump which remained open for 24 hours but none of the employees were called to be witnesses to the
seizure when the stolen articles were being recovered on being led by the accused Basanta and in absence of any independent corroboration to the
confessional statements of the accused persons before the R.P.F. officials on seizure of Articles, acquitted the accused persons.
7. The occurrence is of the year 1983, the order of acquittal was passed on 5.9.1984 and in the meantime more than 21 years has elapsed. In
view of the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution and after a lapse of more than two decades, I do not find any reason at this stage to
disturb the finding and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. The Government appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
