Jharkhand High Court
Md. Mausham Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.183 of 2012
1. Md. Mausham Ansari, son of Tajuddin Ansari alias Sahjee
Ansari, resident of village Laludih, P.O. & P.S. - Hariharpur
(Gomoh), District - Dhanbad
2. Akhtar Ansari @ Churka, son of late Ulfat Ansari, resident of
village Laludih, P.O & P.S. Hariharpur (Gomoh), Dhanbad
... ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Sen, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Tapas Roy, Adv.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
10/15.07.2021 Heard Mr. Pratik Sen, learned amicus appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party - State.
3. The learned amicus for the petitioners submits that
altogether three persons were alleged to have been caught with
railway property which consisted of four long pull rods and one
short pull rod and one of them was juvenile and accordingly, in
the present case only two of the convicts are present before this
Court. Learned amicus submits that out of the seized articles,
only one long pull rod was exhibited before the learned court
below as material Exhibit-1 and that itself demolishes the entire
prosecution case. The prosecution was under a legal obligation
to produce all the seized articles. He also submits that since one
long pull rod was produced therefore, it cannot be said from
whose possession out of the three, the same was recovered.
4. The learned amicus also refers to a judgment passed in
the case of Nirmal Lal Gupta Vs. State of Orissa by Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 713 to submit that
the present case of the petitioners is their first offence therefore,
the petitioners would be governed by Section 3 (a) of the
Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter
referred to as the aforesaid Act of 1966) which provides
punishment for imprisonment or fine or both. In the said sub-
Section itself, there is a minimum imprisonment of one year for
the first offence and the maximum punishment is of 5 years. The
learned amicus submits that considering the fact that the
present offence is the first offence of the petitioners, the learned
court below ought to have considered the case of the petitioners
in the light of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as well,
which has not been done by the learned trial court as well as the
learned appellate court. The learned amicus submits that in the
present case, considering the fact that the offence is of the year
2002 and longtime has already elapsed, this Court may consider
modifying the sentence, and in lieu of imprisonment, some fine
may be imposed as it is permissible under the Section itself.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the
other hand, while opposing the prayer has submitted that there
are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below
while considering the fact that the matter relates to theft of
railway property, the petitioner has been rightly convicted. He
also submits that the learned trial court has already imposed the
minimum punishment of one year as prescribed under Section
3 (a) of the aforesaid Act of 1966 and accordingly, no
interference is called for. However, he submits that in case, this
Court is inclined to interfere with the sentence of the petitioners,
then some fine amount may be imposed upon the petitioners.
6. Arguments concluded.
7. Post this case on 19th July, 2021 for Judgement.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
