[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Om Prakash Seth vs The State Of Bihar on 10 February, 2026
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.420 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2015 Thana- SASARAM RPF/POST District- Gaya
======================================================
Om Prakash Seth S/o Shri Kashi Seth, Resident of village- Ghataon Police
Station Kudra, District- Kaimur ( Bhabhua).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunil Kumar Ojha, Son of Late Sumer Ojha, R/O Vill.- Pratap Pur, P.s.-
Awatar Nagar, Dist.- Chhapra, The Then Sub Inspector Railway Securties
Force, Bhabua.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rameshwar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-02-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP for the State. Though service has been declared
upon the opposite party no. 2, there is no representation on his
behalf.
2. The present revision petition has been filed against
the judgment/order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gaya in Criminal Appeal No. 100
of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court,
while dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 08.10.2018 passed by the
learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Gaya in RP
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.420 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
2/5
Case No. 10 of 2015 arising out of Complaint No. 04 of 2015 in
which the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under
Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966
(for short "RP(UP) Act"), modified the sentence by reducing it
to simple imprisonment for one year from simple imprisonment
for 2 years imposed by the learned Additional Judicial
Magistrate, Railway, Gaya.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on
getting information about theft of 3 IR plate (Railways
property), on suspicion, the petitioner was apprehended with a
plastic bag containing 3 IR plate of aluminum. Thereafter, on
the basis of a written complaint, Sasaram RPF Case No. 04 of
2015 was registered under Section 3 RP (UP) Act. After
submission of inquiry report, cognizance was taken and charge
was framed against the petitioner under Section 3 of RP(UP)
Act. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence and
material on record, convicted the petitioner under Section 3 of
RP (UP) Act and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for two years vide judgment/order dated
08.01.2018
. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred
appeal in which the said order of conviction was maintained by
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.420 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
the learned appellate court. However, it reduced the period of
sentence of simple imprisonment from two years to one year
vide judgment/order dated 13.05.2022. Both the aforesaid
judgments/orders are under challenge before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
judgment/orders dated 08.10.2018 and 13.05.2022 passed by the
learned trial court as well as appellate court are bad in the eye of
law as well as on facts of the case. There is no eye witness to the
whole occurrence. No one has seen the petitioner committing
theft for which he was charged. The petitioner was attending the
natural call near the railway line from where he has been
arrested and recovery of a plastic bag containing some railway
articles has been shown from the petitioner. Learned counsel
further submits that the petitioner remained in custody for 45
days and he has been convicted merely on presumption. Hence,
both the impugned judgment/orders are not sustainable and the
same be set aside.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the submission
made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
7. From perusal of record, I find that the witnesses
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.420 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
have supported the prosecution case about recovery of stolen
article being made from the petitioner. It was not the
prosecution case that someone saw any person stealing any
railway property. Though, subsequently, they came to know
about the petitioner who was found taking some material from a
ditch concealed with husk and recovery of railway property was
made from him. Apart from that, the witnesses have, more or
less, supported the prosecution case. Therefore, in this
background and finding recorded by two courts regarding the
complicity of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence and
thereby convicting the petitioner, I am inclined to interfere with
the orders so far as conviction is concerned. However,
considering the fact that the trial was started in the year 2015
and the petitioner remained in custody for 45 days, though he
has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one
year, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the
petitioner is ordered to be released with reduced sentence and
some fine.
8. Therefore, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced
to the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine
of Rs. 10,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner
before the learned trial court within a month from the date of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.420 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
this order. Since the petitioner is already on provisional bail, he
is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
9. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, the
present criminal revision petition stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.02.2026
Transmission Date 12.02.2026
