2026:JHHC:25321 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1171 of 2017 -------- 1. Uday Sahani S/o. Ram Chandra Sahani; 2. Doma Sah @ Doma Kumar @ Doman Sah, S/o. Late Durga Sah. Both are R/o. mouza- Bartalla, P.O.- Sahibganj, P.S.- Town (Sahibganj), Dist.- Sahibganj, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. Judgment Dated: 21st August, 2026 By Court:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P. 2. Instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 62/2016 dated 28th July, 2017, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the petitioners for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act passed by learned Trial Court in RPS Case No. 01 of 2014 corresponding to T. R. No. 68 of 2016, dated 16.09.2016, whereby, the petitioners were held guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that in the night of 23/24.02.2014, when A.S.I. C. L. Yadav, Head constable Rajendra Paswan, Sanjay Kumar and constable Babli Ram Meena, in the night 2026:JHHC:25321 2 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 1171 of 2017) round at goods shed area, at about 2.35 hours, noticed that three persons were coming out from railway track and proceeding towards river Ganga with something heavy on their shoulders. On suspicion, they chased them and were able to detain one of them while remaining two persons ran away throwing the material which was wrapped in poly chat bags. One poly chat bag was recovered form possession of the apprehended person. On being checked, the said bag was containing one CST-9 plate each. The apprehended person disclosed his name to be Uday Sahani (petitioner no. 1) but he failed to render satisfactory account of lawful possession of CST-9 plate, which is a railway property. All the said three CST-9 plates were seized and seizure list was prepared. The apprehended accused disclosed the name of other two accused as Doma Sah and Golu Paswan respectively. 4. On the basis of above written report, complaint being RPF Post Sahibganj Case No. 01 of 2014 was registered on 24.02.2014 for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act against the above named petitioners and one co-accused. 5. After completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer finding the prima facie case against the petitioners filed the prosecution report under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act and the learned Trial Court took cognizance under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act and charges were framed, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence of the respective parties, held the petitioners guilty for the offence under 2026:JHHC:25321 3 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 1171 of 2017) Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act and sentence them accordingly as stated above. 7. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 62 of 2016, which was decided by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj. The learned Appellate Court concurrently also upheld the judgment of the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record, which has been assailed in this revision. Submission on behalf of the Petitioners:- 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, without touching the merits of the judgment, has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioners by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court. It is further submitted that petitioners were held guilty on the basis of recovery of CST-9 plate from their possession, which is railway property. The petitioner Uday Sahani was apprehended on spot and he disclosed the name of other accused. It is further submitted that the petitioners have already remained in custody for two months out of one year awarded by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court. The occurrence is of the year 2014 and more than 12 years have been elapsed. The petitioners have got no criminal background except this case and during the pendency of this case, they have also not indulged in any other criminal activity. Therefore, sentence of one year awarded by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court may be altered / modified to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by them. 2026:JHHC:25321 4 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 1171 of 2017) Submission on behalf of the State:- 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment on merits and has submitted that there are concurrent finding of illegal possession of railway's properties. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, but so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned in the factual aspect of the case, an appropriate order may be passed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 10. I have gone through the impugned judgments passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court. 11. It appears that in the course of trial, altogether six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, apart from following documentary evidence:- I. Exhibit-1 Seizure list II. Exhibit-1/1 & 1/2: Signatures of PW-3 & 5 on seizure list III. Exhibit-2 to 4: Signature of PW-2 on labels IV. Exhibit-2/1, 3/1, & 4/1: Signature of PW-3 on lables, V. Exhibit-2/2, 3/2 & 4/2: Signature of PW-4 on lables VI. Exhibit-2/3, 3/3 & 4/3: Signature of PW-5 on lables VII. Exhibit-5: Complaint VIII. Exhibit-6: Statement of accused Uday Sahani IX. Exhibit-7 & 7/1: Signature of PW-6 on site plan & Site plant respectively, X. Exhibit-8: Expert Opinion XI. Exhibit-9: Prosecution report 2026:JHHC:25321 5 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 1171 of 2017) XII. Exhibit-10 & 10/1: Statements of Golu Paswan & Doma Sah respectively. XIII. Exhibit-I, II & III : Three numbers of CST-9 plates respectively. 12. On the other hand, defence has neither examined any witness nor any documentary evidence. 13. It appears from the evidence available on record that the petitioners were apprehended possessing with the railway property i.e. CST-9 plates, which has been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses beyond reasonable doubt. PW-6, who is the Enquiry Officer has duly proved the prosecution report as Ext.-9 alongwith the statement of accused persons as Ext. 6, 10 & 10/1 respectively and this fact has been further corroborated by the evidence of PW-1, 2, 3 & 5. Ext-8, the expert opinion has clearly established that the seized CST-9 plates were of railway property and the same are not available in open market. It is clear that three CST-9 plates were seized from the conscious possession of the petitioners and one Golu Paswan which was exclusively property of Indian Railway and that was unlawfully obtained by the accused persons. No reason or explanation has been offered by the petitioners with regard to possession of railway property. Therefore, conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act is hereby upheld. 14. So far the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioners by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court is concerned, it appears that occurrence is of the year 2014 and more than 12 years have been elapsed. The petitioners have got no criminal background except this case and during the pendency of this case, 2026:JHHC:25321 6 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 1171 of 2017) they have also not indulged in any other criminal activity. 15. Hence, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, conviction of the petitioners is hereby upheld and confirmed and sentence awarded to the petitioners by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court is modified to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners. 16. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed with modification in sentence. 17. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 18. Let a copy of this order / judgment alongwith the trial court records be sent back immediately to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated: 21stAugsut, 2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 25/08/2026