Panchkula, May 11 -- A Jalandhar resident was acquitted in a railway theft case after the government railway police (GRP) in Chandigarh failed to provide evidence of ownership of the allegedly stolen items - a mobile phone and some cash. The court of chief judicial magistrate (CJM) Ajay Kumar acquitted Kumod Kumar, who was booked under Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code in May 2022. In his judgment, the CJM highlighted the cross-examination of assistant sub-inspector (ASI) Manjeet Singh, who admitted that no information about the mobile phone was received from the telecom company and that no theft complaint had been registered before Kumar's apprehension on May 12, 2022. Crucially, the owner of the recovered cash and mobile phone was neither traced during the investigation nor presented as a witness in court. The court also criticised the police for not including independent witnesses during the recovery, despite their availability at the railway station, as testified by ASI Angat Singh. Furthermore, the court questioned why closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera footage from the railway station, considered crucial evidence for verifying the recovery, was not taken into police custody. According to the prosecution, ASI Manjeet Singh arrested Kumar at Chandigarh railway station on suspicion. A search allegedly yielded a mobile phone and Rs.19,000. He reportedly confessed to stealing these items from a passenger on Amarpali Express on May 10, 2022, leading to the registration of an FIR. However, the prosecution's case faltered due to lack of evidence to prove that the recovered items were indeed stolen. The IMEI details of the mobile phone were sought from the cyber branch in Ambala Cantt, but no information was received by the time the chargesheet was filed. All seven prosecution witnesses presented during the trial were police officials. The CJM stated that it can safely be said that even if it is presumed that recovery of currency notes and mobile phone was rightly made from the accused, even then the nature of the recovered property does not establish it to be stolen property. And on this ground alone, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt....