AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
Though there is a delay of 488 days in filing the appeal, appeal is heard on merit.
Appeal is by the State against the judgment of acquittal of accused Ho. 3 in C.C.No. 209/2003, dated 04.11.2000, passed by the Special Court for Economic offenoes at Bangalore.
The accused Nos, 1 to 3 were tried for the offences punishable u/s 3(a) of the Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.
The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence has convicted the accused Nos. 1 to 2, however, accused No. 3 has been acquitted. The allegation against the accused No. 3 is that he is the receiver of the stolen properties.
To prove that the accused No. 3 is receiver of the stolen properties though two witnesses have been examined as PW8 and PW9, both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Further, premises from where the material was seized is also not proved it as belongs to the accused No. 3, and no lease agreement, nor ownership of the property was produced. Further, the identity of the material is also not proved, as it was not produced before the Court.
Learned State Public Prosecutor states that there is a confession statement, which is admissible in the evidence, No doubt, it is the admissible evidence but should be corroborated, that itself is not sufficient to convict the accused. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused No. 3.
7, In so far as accused No. 3 is concerned, I find no grounds to interfere with the judgment passed by the Trial Court.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and same is dismissed.
Consequently, IA No. 1/2011 filed for condonation of delay of 456 days in filing the appeal is disposed of