Andhra High Court High Court

Public Prosecutor, High Court Of … vs Patnana Chandrasekhar Alias Uma … on 21 December, 1994

Andhra High Court
Public Prosecutor, High Court Of … vs Patnana Chandrasekhar Alias Uma … on 21 December, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995 CriLJ 1410
Bench: B S Reddy

ORDER

1. This appeal is filed by the State against the imposition of fine to Rs. 1,000/- by the court below for offences punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1996 (Central Act 29 of 66) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The accusation was that the Fish plates which was a Railway property were being carried in a Van bearing No. ATV 6795 and the accused, i.e. respondents 1 and 2 herein were apprehended and they admitted their guilt. Taking it as a lenient circumstance, as it was the first offence, each of the accused were fined Rs. 1,000/-; default to undergo S.I. for three months.

2. Mr. K. Raja Reddy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor vehemently contends that under Section 3(a) of the Act, the sentence of imprisonment is a must and the court below has committed gross, error in sentencing the accused only to pay a fine. The contention of Mr. Raja Reddy is that while for the first offence, the mandatory sentence of imprisonment is one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, for the second offence under Section 3(b) of the Act the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment is two years while mandatory minimum sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The fact that the offence committed by the accused is a first offence is not disputed. In fact the prosecution itself was under Section 3(a) of the Act dealing with the first offence. With regard to exercise of power by the Court below to opt to impose the sentence of fine cannot be interfered with and in fact the learned Public Prosecutor stresses only the legal contention that under Section 3(a) the mandatory minimum imprisonment shall be one year together with mandatory sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/-. As such interpretation of Section 3(a) is involved.

3. It is useful to extract Section 3(a) and (b) of the Act :

“3. Penalty for unlawful possession of railway property : Whoever is found, or is proved to have been, is possession of any railway property reasonable suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained shall, unless he proves that the railway property came into his possession lawfully, be punishable :

(a) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees;

(b) for the second or a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than two years and such fine shall not be less than five thousand rupees.”

4. It is a settled law that a penal law should be interpreted strictly and if any doubt arises, the benefit should go to the accused, more so in view of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The learned Public Prosecutor lays stress on the latter part of the Section 3(a) of the Act laying emphasis on “such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees”. But this cannot be read in isolation. Whole of the said provision contained in Section 3(a) of the Act has to be read in a composite manner and has to be understood as such. If so read and understood, what Section 3(a) means is that for the first offence it is not mandatory on the part of the court to award the sentence of imprisonment and the court can opt to impose a sentence of fine and can also impose both sentence of imprisonment and a fine. If the Court opts to impose a sentence of imprisonment, it shall be for a minimum period of one year. On the other hand, if the Court chooses not to impose the sentence of imprisonment but imposes only a sentences of fine, such quantum of fine shall not be less than Rs. 1,000/-. A correct and harmonious reading of S. 3(a) is that a Court trying an offence under Section 3(a) of the Act has got a discretion, basing on the facts arising in a particular case, either to impose sentence of imprisonment or sentence of fine or both and if it chooses to imprison the accused, the minimum period shall be one year or if it chooses to impose a fine it shall be a minimum of Rs. 1,000/- and even the minimum can be reduced for the reasons to be recorded. This is made very clear by a reading of Section 3(b) which deals with the second or a subsequent offence where it is mandatory on the part of the Court to impose both, imprisonment and fine, with no choice left for the court to choose either of them. Even with regard to the imprisonment, the mandatory term is two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- but the same can be reduced, for the special and adequate reasons to be recorded. The vital and marked difference between the Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Act is that while Section 3(a) gives discretion to the Court either to impose imprisonment or fine or both, there is no such choice left to the Court under Section 3(b) of the Act and the Court is obligate, if the offence is proved, to impose both imprisonment and fine. In the circumstances I do not find any merit in this criminal appeal for admission and the same is accordingly dismissed.

5. Appeal dismissed.