Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010011712013 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./399/2013 AJIT GOGOI S/O LT. BHADRESWAR GOGOI R/O NAKACHARI TIRUAL GAON P.S. MARIANI, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA RAILWAY and ANR. REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER, NF RLY, MARIANI, JORHAT. 2:THE STATE OF ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.C SARMA, MS.B BEGUM,MR.N C DAS,MS.M DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, RAILWAY, ,PP, ASSAM,MR.D K DEY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 24-10-2025 Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.K. Dey, learned standing counsel, Railways appearing for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. The present revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 12- Page No.# 2/5 07-2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Crl. Appeal No. 7(1)/2013, dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment dated 10-12-2012, passed by the Special Railway Magistrate First Class, Tinsukia in SRCR Case No. 99/2010, convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 3(b) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1966) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 (three) months along with fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 (one) month. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21-01-2009 at around 14:00 Hrs., following a tipoff about concealment of railway materials in the scrap shop of the petitioner, herein, a raid was conducted in the scrap shop of the petitioner. During the said raid 52 kgs. of rail and 07 (seven) Nos. of PST slipper came to be recovered. The petitioner, herein, failed to produce any valid documents justifying possession by him of the railway materials. The railway materials were seized and the petitioner was arrested. Based on the said complaint SRCR Case No. 99/2010 came to be registered under Section 3(b) of the Act of 1966 in the court of Special Railway Magistrate First Class, Tinsukia. The prosecution, during the trial, had examined 09 (nine) witnesses and the petitioner, herein, was thereafter examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court proceeded vide judgment dated 10-12-2012 to convict the petitioner under Section 3(b) of the Act of 1966 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 (three) months along with fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 01 (one) more month. The petitioner being aggrieved by his conviction by the learned Trial Court vide Page No.# 3/5 judgment dated 10-12-2012 assailed the same by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 7(1)/2013 before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia. The learned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, during the trial, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 5. The evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses during the trial has brought on record the fact that railway materials were seized from the possession of the petitioner, herein, and the petitioner had not justified such possession by him of the railway materials. The evidences adduced has further brought to the forefront the fact that the petitioner, herein, was earlier convicted of an offence under Section 3(a) of the Act of 1966 and was sentenced. The said aspect of the matter was not disputed by the petitioner during the trial. Accordingly it was established that the petitioner, herein, before commission of the offence involved in the present proceeding was also involved in commission of similar nature of offence. The learned Trial Court upon due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record had drawn a conclusion with regard to the guilt of the petitioner, herein, and accordingly, convicted him under Section 3(b) of the Act of 1966. The learned Appellate Court on an appeal being preferred before it had again re-appreciated the evidences coming on record and noticing the fact that the petitioner had not disputed the recovery of the railway materials from his scrap godown and also not justified the possession of said materials by him, considering the earlier Page No.# 4/5 conviction of the petitioner for a similar offence, proceeded to dismiss the appeal by upholding the conviction of the petitioner by the learned Trial Court. 6. This Court has carefully perused the conclusions drawn both by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court and this Court finds that the conclusions have been drawn basing due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record during the trial and no infirmity is found therein. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant, herein, under Section 3(b) of the Act of 1966 would not mandate any interference. 7. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now consider the sentencing of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 (one) more month. This Court noticing that the incident involved in the matter was committed by the petitioner on 21-01-2009. More than 16 years have lapsed since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein. The trial court record reveals that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said offence and was sent to judicial custody on 22-01-2009. The petitioner remains in custody till he was enlarged on bail on 03-02-2009 by the learned Trial Court. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein, this Court is of the considered view that the sentencing imposed, herein, would require modification. Accordingly, the sentencing of the petitioner is limited to the period of detention already undergone by him in the matter. However, the punishment of imposition of fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Page No.# 5/5 Thousand) along with the provision that in default of payment of fine he is to suffer simple imprisonment for 01 (one), month is not interfered with. 6. In view of the above, the sentencing of the petitioner is modified to the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner, herein. The petitioner would now, within a period of 02 (two) months from today, appear before the learned Trial Court and deposit the fine amount. 7. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. 8. Registry to send back the TCR along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant