Railway property unlawful possession: prior or transient possession during theft can sustain a charge under the Act.

Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 applies where the accused is proved to have been in possession of railway property at any point of time, including during the alleged theft, and not only when the property is found in possession at the moment of seizure. The Court held that an allegation of theft necessarily implies that the property passed into the accused's possession, even if transiently, and that such allegations can justify a charge under section 3. The earlier view limiting the provision to subsisting possession at seizure was rejected, and the charge was directed to be added.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is attracted where the accused are alleged to have stolen railway property and are not found in possession of it at the time of seizure, but are alleged to have had possession during the course of the theft.

Analysis: Section 3 penalises a person who is found, or is proved to have been, in possession of railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. The provision is satisfied not only by subsisting possession at the time of seizure but also by proof that the accused had been in possession at any earlier point of time. An allegation of theft necessarily involves movement of the property out of the possession of another and into the possession of the accused, even if only transiently. Where the allegations specifically state that the accused removed the railway property by theft, that is sufficient to justify a charge under section 3. The section is not confined to the narrower situation of property merely found in possession at seizure.

Conclusion: The High Court erred in limiting section 3 to cases of possession at the time of seizure. The charge under section 3 was rightly directed to be framed against the accused alleged to have stolen and removed the railway property.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the trial court was directed to add the charge under section 3 of the Act against the relevant accused in addition to the existing IPC charges.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, proof that the accused had been in possession of railway property at any point of time, including during a theft, is sufficient and possession need not be subsisting at the moment of seizure.

---