Yogendra Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4726 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                              Cr. Rev. No. 554 of 2012

                1. Yogendra Saw, S/o Late Nathuni Saw,
                2. Raju Saw, S/o late Raj Kumar Saw
                   Both resident of village - Mihijam, Hill Road, P.O. + P.S. -
                   Mihijam, District - Jamtara          ...     ...     Petitioners
                                         Versus
                   The State of Jharkhand ...          ...       Opposite Party
                                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Mahua Palit, Advocate

---

11/09.12.2021 Heard Mr. Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioners and they have been convicted under Section 3 (a) of Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 for one year simple imprisonment. He submits that petitioner no.1 has remained in custody at the stage of trial from 18.06.2006 to 05.10.2006 and thereafter, at the revisional stage from 04.08.2012 to 12.09.2012 i.e., total period of 88 days. He further submits that as per the supplementary affidavit filed by the State there is one more case registered against the petitioner, though, it is of the year 2016 and as per the affidavit, the said case is also under registered under Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. He further submits that so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, he had initially absconded during the stage of trial and he surrendered on 01.08.2007 and was directed to be enlarged on bail on 24.08.2007 and thereafter, he has remained in custody during the pendency before this Court from 04.08.2012 to 12.09.2012. He submits that as per the counter-affidavit filed by the State, there is no other case pending against petitioner no.2. Learned counsel has further submitted that the main point involved in the present case is that the necessary search warrant

under Section 10 of Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 was not taken and accordingly, he submits that the conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He has referred to judgment passed in the case of Sakthi Steel Traders Vs. Ashoke Chakraborty and others reported in 1993 Criminal Law Journal 969 and also a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Durga Prasad reported in AIR 1974 SC 2136.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel has further submitted that the recovered stolen property was assessed to be valued at Rs. 5,850/-.

4. Arguments concluded.

5. Post this case for judgement on 24.01.2022.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav