IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1247 of 2007 Appeal under Section 378(4) (5) & (1) of Cr.P.C 1973, against the Judgment in CC No. 19/2001 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Waltair, Visakhapatnam District, dated the 22"'^ day of April, 2003. Between: The Senior Security Commissioner, rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati. ...Appellant AND 1. Charakatam Trinadha Rao, S/o. Muttyulu, Gavara, NAD Kotha Road, D.No. 58-16-69, Ambedkar Nagar, Working a Khalasi Helper token No. 1325(C&W) Department, Ore-Exchange yard, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Nakka Appa Rao Reddy, S/o.Late Venkata Reddy, Allipuram Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Public Prosecutor Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri I Naveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri V V N Narasimham The Court made the following: APHC010456932007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1247/2007 Between: The Senior Secrity Commissioner ...APELLANT AND Charakatam Trinadha Rao and Others ...RESPODENT(S) Counsel for the Apellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respodent(S): 1.1 NAVEEN KUMAR 2.VV N NARASIMHAM The Court made the following Judgment: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.04.2003 passed in CC No. 19 of 2001 by the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Waltair. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.6.2000, P.W.1, along with P.Ws.4, 6 and others, while conducting surprise rounds at Waltair marshaling yard and its surrounding area, at 2.20 pm. 2 ^ . SRK, J Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 they found A1 carrying something heavy in an oid cement poiythene bag on his right hand in a suspicious manner at Samba Murthy Nagar road. On that, the raiding party detained him and found 8 kgs of broken pieces of railway distributary valve and four elastomeric rubber pads in the said polythene bag, in his possession. On demand, A1 failed to produce proper authority receipt for possessing the said railway articles and thereupon P.W.1 seized the said articles from the possession of A1 under the cover of a or seizure list, arrested him and recorded his confessional statement. During the course of interrogation, A1 confessed that he used to dispose of the railway material to A2 at his shop at Dondaparthi. Hence, a case has been registered against A1 and A2 in Crime No.28 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Thereafter, the raiding party along with A1 and independent witness, went to the shop of A2 Dondaparthi, and on interrogation A2 produced three Aluminum window shutter and 4 Kgs of broken pieces of distributary valve kept in an old cement polythene bag. Thereupon, P.W.1 seized the said property from the possession of A2 under the cover of seizure list. A.1 and A.2 were arrested and sent judicial custody. at 3 SRK, J Criminal Appeal No.1247 of 2007 During the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded, and theft memo in connection with the property in dispute was received from the concerned. Having received requisition, PW10 issued ownership certificate stating that the shop situated in Dondaparthi is in the name of PW9, who is none other than the wife of A2. After receipt of all the necessary certificates and completion of enquiry, a report filed against the accused. 3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 against the accused. After furnishing copies of documents to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., charge for the aforesaid offence was framed by the learned Magistrate against the accused. When the charge was read over and explained to them, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21 and MOs.1 to 6. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating 4 SRK, J Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied. 6. After hearing both sides, the trial Court found A1 and A2 are not guilty of the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and accordingly, acquitted them of the charge leveled against them. Against the said acquittal, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State. 7. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing behalf the appellant/State and the learned counsel appearing behalf of the respondents. Perused the material on record. on on Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that from the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, coupled with Exs.P1 to P4, the 8. prosecution is able to establish that the accused were found in possession of railway property illegally and the same was seized from their possession, and hence, the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Magistrate attached much weight to minor contradictions and discrepancies and erred in acquitting the accused. 5 SRK, J Criminal Appeal No.1247 of 2007 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is inconsistent with the contents of EXs.P1 to P4, and there discrepancies in the evidence of material prosecution witnesses on material aspects, and the prosecution failed to establish that the accused were found in possession of the railway property, and the learned Magistrate rightly found the accused not guilty of the charge leveled against them and prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. are 10. Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the respondents/ accused for the offence with which they were charged, and whether the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court requires interference by this Court ? This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because presumption available under law is further 11. 1'' 6 ^ . SRK, J Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 Strengthened by the order of substantial or compelling disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the acquittal. Unless there are reasons, this Court will not ordinarily trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence taken into consideration has not been or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 12. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision i Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab\ wherein it held as follows: (para 8) The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only ‘compelling and substantial reasons’ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52); Ajmer Singh v State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418: (AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, ‘compelling reasons’ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words ‘compelling reasons’. In later years in was on ^ AIR 1962 SC 439 7 SRK, J Criminal Appeal No.1247 of 2007 the Court has often avoided emphasis on ‘compelling reasons’ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.” A perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that the trial Court, while dealing with the point ‘whether the property is dispute belongs to Indian Railways ?’, upon perusal of the contents of Ex.P1, which is in corroboration with the contents of Ex.P12, and basing on the testimony of the PW.8, came to a conclusion that the property in dispute exclusively belongs to Indian Railways. The said finding remained unchallenged. 13. 14. The other points are ‘whether the accused are found or proved to be in possession of the property in dispute? and whether the property in dispute is either stolen or unlawfully obtained, railway property?’. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.6.2000, P.W.I, along with P.Ws.4, 6 and others, while conducting surprise checks at Waltair marshaling yard and its surrounding area, found A1 in possession of M.Os.1 and 2 in M.0.3-bag, and he failed to produce any authority for possession of the same. P.W.I seized the said material objects 8 Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 in the presence of P.Ws.2 and recorded Ex.P2 assistance of P.w.4 for confessional statement and 3-mediators under -confessional statement cover of Ex.Pl of A.1 taking translation purpose. Pursuant to the the raiding party along with A.1 went to who is none other than iron scrap shop of P.W.11 and found A.2 there. 5 in M.0.6-polythene bag presence of P.w.5 and son of A.2, produced M.Os.4 and which were seized by P.w.1 in the cover of Ex.PS-seIzure list statement of A.2. by taking purpose. On interrogation, A.2 another under and recorded Ex.P4-confessional assistance of P,W.4 for translation 15. Admittedly, Exs.P1 to P4 were prepared by p.w.1 iin English by translating the Telugu assistance of P.W.4. know Telugu, and A.1 version of A. 1 and A.2 with the ft is undisputed fact that P.W.1 does not and A.2 know Telugu only and do not know is silent with regard to the the Telugu English. But, the evidence of P.W.1 i aspect that he prepared Exs.P1 to P4 by translating version of A.1 and A.2 with the deposed as if p.w.1 assistance of P.W.4. prepared Exs.P2 and P4 P.W.4 and his evidence is silent with regard to preparation of the said documents version of A.1 and A.2. cannot be inferred that Exs.P1 version stated by A.1 and A.2 with his assistance for translating the When such is the evidence, it to P4 were prepared as per the and that A.1 9 SRK, J Criminal Appeal No.1247 of 2007 and A.2 have knowledge about the contents of the said documents. Further, a perusal of the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, there are contradictions on material aspects. According to P.Ws.1 and 6, pursuant to confession of A.1 under Ex.P2, the raiding party members, along with A.1, went to iron scrap shop of A.2 at 4.15 PM on the fateful day. Whereas, P.W.4, who was said to have witnessed Exs.P1 and P3-seizure lists, deposed that he along with other raiding party members reached the shop of A.2 at 4.45 or 5.00 PM on that day. Further, P.W.2, who is said to have witnessed contents of Exs.P1 and P2, did not narrate the particulars of properties seized under cover of P.W.2 further deposed that in his presence, police did not question or interrogate A.1 and that he does not know the contents of the report which contained his thumb impression. P.W.3, who is said to have witnessed the contents of Exs.P1 and 1. Ex.P1. P2, deposed that police caught hold of A.1 at Port quarters in Sambamurthy Nagar, ‘four’ years prior to his giving evidence and that being illiterate, he does not know the contents of the report which contained his thumb impression. Further more, P.W.5, who is said to be independent mediator in whose presence M.Os.4 to 6 were seized from the 16. I ' 10 ^ . SRK, J Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 possession of A.2 basing on Ex.P2-confessional statement of A.1, did not support the prosecution version and he was declared hostile. P.W.5 deposed that at the thumb impression on white request of police, he put his paper and he does not know names of the accused and he did not see contents of the bag seized. Though P.W.5 was cross-examined by the prosecution with the permission of the Court, nothing has been elicited to incriminate the accused. In view of the aforesaid material inconsistencies i the version of material prosecution witnesses, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed in to establish the seizure of the material objects from the possession of the accused, and the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt, trial Court, upon considering the evidence The on record in right perspective, rightly found the accused not guilty of the charge levelled against them, and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 22.04.2003 passed in CC No.19 of 2001 by the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Waltair. 11 SRK, J Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. any. SD/-VDIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1. The VI Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Waltair, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri VV N Narasimham, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri I Naveen Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies //TRUE COPY// To TK HIGH COURT TK DATED:12/03/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1247 of 2007 . Current Section DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL