Mofil Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 8820 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mofil Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 4 September, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                    Cr. Rev. No. 1447 of 2016

     Mofil Khan                                    ...      ...     Petitioner
                                Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                 ...        ... Opposite Party
                                ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

     For the Petitioner         : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
     For the Opp. Party         :
                                ---

07/04.09.2024

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basic ingredients for punishing the petitioner under section 3 of the R.P (U.P) Act has not been satisfied. Neither the allegation of theft has been proved nor possession has been proved.

3. He has also submitted that the coal was found scattered near the railway line at open place and therefore, the property cannot be said to be the railway property.

4. The learned counsel submits that though the charge was framed under section 3 of R.P (U.P) Act but no specific charge was framed under section 3(b) of R.P (U.P) Act. In absence of specific charge having been framed under section 3(b) of R.P (U.P) Act the petitioner could not have been convicted under section 3(b) of R.P (U.P) Act. He has placed section 3 (a) and 3(b) of the R.P. (U.P) Act and has submitted that the basic ingredients for offence under both the sub sections are same and the only differences that in case of previous conviction, the offence is punishable under section 3(b) of R.P (U.P) Act. Two previous convictions has been mentioned in the order passed by the learned trial court in connection with R.P. Case No. 9 of 2000 and R.P. Case No. 77 of 1994. He submits that no specific charge having been framed under section 3(b) of R.P (U.P) Act, the

conviction under section 3(b) of R.P (U.P) Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

5. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been convicted only the basis of confessional statement and nothing more.

6. He submits that the persons whose confessional statements was recorded namely Majid @ Babloo, Md. Hasib Miya and Md. Samaula, their case was split vide order dated 05.07.2008 due to their prolonged non-appearance.

7. The trial court's judgment also records that the petitioner was arrested on 29.02.2003 from his house and he had confessed his guilt and his confessional statement was recorded.

8. Post this case on 05.09.2024 for further hearing.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-