OM PRAKASH SETHversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            CRIMINAL REVISION No.420 of 2022
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2015 Thana- SASARAM RPF/POST District- Gaya
     ======================================================
     Om Prakash Seth S/o Shri Kashi Seth, Resident of village- Ghataon Police
     Station Kudra, District- Kaimur ( Bhabhua).

                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                          Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.   Sunil Kumar Ojha, Son of Late Sumer Ojha, R/O Vill.- Pratap Pur, P.s.-
     Awatar Nagar, Dist.- Chhapra, The Then Sub Inspector Railway Securties
     Force, Bhabua.

                                             ... ... Opposite Parties
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s      :     Mr. Rameshwar Singh, Advocate
     For the State             :     Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP
     ======================================================
        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                         ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 10-02-2026

                    Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

      learned APP for the State. Though service has been declared

      upon the opposite party no. 2, there is no representation on his

      behalf.

                    2. The present revision petition has been filed against

      the judgment/order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the learned

      Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gaya in Criminal Appeal No. 100

      of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court,

      while dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of

      conviction and order of sentence dated 08.10.2018 passed by the

      learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Gaya in RP
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.420 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
                                            2/5




         Case No. 10 of 2015 arising out of Complaint No. 04 of 2015 in

         which the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple

         imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under

         Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966

         (for short “RP(UP) Act”), modified the sentence by reducing it

         to simple imprisonment for one year from simple imprisonment

         for 2 years imposed by the learned Additional Judicial

         Magistrate, Railway, Gaya.

                      3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on

         getting information about theft of 3 IR plate (Railways

         property), on suspicion, the petitioner was apprehended with a

         plastic bag containing 3 IR plate of aluminum. Thereafter, on

         the basis of a written complaint, Sasaram RPF Case No. 04 of

         2015 was registered under Section 3 RP (UP) Act. After

         submission of inquiry report, cognizance was taken and charge

         was framed against the petitioner under Section 3 of RP(UP)

         Act. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence and

         material on record, convicted the petitioner under Section 3 of

         RP (UP) Act and sentenced him to undergo simple

         imprisonment for two years vide judgment/order dated

         08.01.2018. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred

         appeal in which the said order of conviction was maintained by
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.420 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
                                            3/5




         the learned appellate court. However, it reduced the period of

         sentence of simple imprisonment from two years to one year

         vide judgment/order dated 13.05.2022. Both the aforesaid

         judgments/orders are under challenge before this Court.

                      4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

         judgment/orders dated 08.10.2018 and 13.05.2022 passed by the

         learned trial court as well as appellate court are bad in the eye of

         law as well as on facts of the case. There is no eye witness to the

         whole occurrence. No one has seen the petitioner committing

         theft for which he was charged. The petitioner was attending the

         natural call near the railway line from where he has been

         arrested and recovery of a plastic bag containing some railway

         articles has been shown from the petitioner. Learned counsel

         further submits that the petitioner remained in custody for 45

         days and he has been convicted merely on presumption. Hence,

         both the impugned judgment/orders are not sustainable and the

         same be set aside.

                      5. Learned APP for the State opposes the submission

         made on behalf of the petitioner.

                      6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

         rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

                      7. From perusal of record, I find that the witnesses
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.420 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
                                            4/5




         have supported the prosecution case about recovery of stolen

         article being made from the petitioner. It was not the

         prosecution case that someone saw any person stealing any

         railway property. Though, subsequently, they came to know

         about the petitioner who was found taking some material from a

         ditch concealed with husk and recovery of railway property was

         made from him. Apart from that, the witnesses have, more or

         less, supported the prosecution case. Therefore, in this

         background and finding recorded by two courts regarding the

         complicity of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence and

         thereby convicting the petitioner, I am inclined to interfere with

         the orders so far as conviction is concerned. However,

         considering the fact that the trial was started in the year 2015

         and the petitioner remained in custody for 45 days, though he

         has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one

         year, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the

         petitioner is ordered to be released with reduced sentence and

         some fine.

                      8. Therefore, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced

         to the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine

         of Rs. 10,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner

         before the learned trial court within a month from the date of
             Patna High Court CR. REV. No.420 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
                                                         5/5




                      this order. Since the petitioner is already on provisional bail, he

                      is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.

                                   9. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, the

                      present criminal revision petition stands disposed of.




                                                         (Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          12.02.2026
Transmission Date       12.02.2026