Accused 1 sold seven tyres to accused 3 for Rs.
It was therefore specifically alleged that accused 1, 2, S and the absconding accused were proved to have been found in unlawful possession of the railway property while accused 3 and 4 were found in unlawful possession thereof within the meaning of section 3 of the Act.
2700/ , and accused 3 removed them in his motor lorry to Savda.
The State felt aggrieved and applied for a revision of that order, but it was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, as mentioned above.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 30 11 1972 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No 51 of 1973.
The seven tyres were stolen by accused 1, 2, 5 and the absconding accused, from the Down Yard of the Bhusawal railway station while in transit, and were kept in the hut of Ragho Motiram Birhade.
Revision Application No.
He produced four tyres from his lorry, but three tyres were found to have been sold the accused 4 and were seized from his possession.
Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Amicus Curiae for the Respondents.
M. Phadke and M. N. Shroff for the Appellant.
701 of 1972.
WR 35775.
It was alleged that seven tyres and seven tubes were booked from Wadi Bunder goods shed of the Central Railway on March 20, 1971, in wagon No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SMINGHAL J., This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated November 30, 1972, Upholding the view of the trial companyrt and the Additional Sessions Judge of Jalgaon that it was number necessary to frame a charge under section 3 of the Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act, 1966, hereafter referred to as the Act, against accused 1, 2, S and the absconding ac cused, and directing that a charge under that section may be framed as an alternative charge only against accused 3 and The State of Maharashtra feels aggrieved because of the failure to frame a charge under the aforesaid section 3 against the accused mentioned above.
