Jharkhand High Court
Amit Sarawgi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 February, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.49 of 2021
Amit Sarawgi ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, A.P.P
---------
nd
03/Dated: 22 February, 2021
I.A. No.884 of 2021
1. This interlocutory application has been filed with a
prayer that the petitioner may be exempted from
surrendering in the court below and from filing the surrender
certificate, in terms of Rule 159 of the High Court of
Jharkhand Rules, 2001.
2. It appears that the petitioner had faced trial in
connection with G.O.C.R Case No.277 of 2008, corresponding
to T.R. Case No.59 of 2016, and the learned Railway Judicial
Magistrate, Madhupur, by judgment dated 10.08.2016, had
found the petitioner not guilty and acquitted him of the
charge under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful
Possession) Act, 1966 [for short R.P(UP) Act]. On appeal, by
the State (Railway), the court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge - VI, Deoghar, in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2017,
reversed the finding of acquittal and held the petitioner guilty
for the offence under Section 3(a) of R.P. (UP) Act, and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three
years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default thereof, to suffer
imprisonment of six months.
On perusal of the trial court judgment, it appears that
the court below has held that one Sudhir Chandra Mandal,
was the Manager of Adi Ispat Ltd., in terms of the Power of
Attorney, executed and signed by the Director i.e., the
petitioner. The trial court has considered and discussed the
evidence of the witnesses, and observed that the petitioner
was not present in the premises. He was residing at Guwahati
and the entire affairs of the company was being supervised
and under control of the power of attorney holder. The trial
court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge
under Section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act against the petitioner. It is
noticed that the first appellate court reversed the finding and
held the petitioner guilty on the ground that the articles
recovered from the premises of the factory, were railway
property.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the
impugned judgment and submitted that the appellate court
has failed to appreciate that under the R.P(UP) Act there is no
provision of vicarious liability or any clause for drawing a
presumption against the accused. It is submitted that it would
be evident that search and seizure were conducted in
contravention and violation of the provisions of Section 10 of
the R.P(UP) Act. The prosecution witness, P.W.- 6, who is a
railway employee, has admitted that no memo was issued of
theft report. To a Court question, he has admitted that such
memo number can be back dated.
It is submitted that the appellate court has found the
petitioner guilty on the ground that the petitioner was unable
to give any satisfactory explanation regarding the articles,
belonging to the railway, recovered from the factory
premises.
4. Heard. The submission of the learned counsel bears
nexus to the materials on record, as such, at this stage, a
prima facie case is made out for granting exemption to the
petitioner from surrendering in the court below and from
filing the surrender certificate on the condition that he shall
deposit Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), as part of the
fine amount, in the court below and the deposit of the amount
shall be without prejudice.
5. With the aforesaid direction I.A. No.884 of 2021 stands
allowed.
Cr. Revision No.49 of 2021
1. Office to call for the lower court record from the court
concerned, and list the revision under the appropriate
heading.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)
Chandan/-
