RailEnquiry

NAGPUR: Government railway police (GRP), Nagpur, has finally registered an offence of theft on Thursday evening nearly five months after the incident had taken place. The theft had been reported on April 7 this year. GRP officials had even ignored the railway policy regarding registration of offence.It is learnt that the GRP agreed to lodge the complaint only after city police's crime branch recovered the stolen LCD television from the suspect Avinash Andarsahare. Andarsahare had allegedly stolen the TV from the railway parcel office five months ago. The parcel belonging to a top politician, had come from Mumbai and was about to be sent to Raipur.No theft offence had been registered and the surprised crime branch officials had to arrest Andarsahare under section 41 (1) (D) of Criminal procedure code (CrPC). Andarsahare was not able to produce any document proving that the LCD television at his Indora residence belonged to him. Thus the cops inferred that the TV could be a stolen one.Even though court released Andarsahare on bail after he furnished the required bond amount, the GRP took him into custody later in the evening after media started questioning their actions so far in the case.The complainant Suraj Agrawal, owner of a private company, had been running from pillar to post to get the case registered but the railway security force had turned a deaf ear to him. He had approached both Railway protection force (RPF) and GRP but was turned away by both.

GRP Nagpur's senior inspector, Chandrashekar Bhaval had been refusing to register the offence on various flimsy grounds.

Agrawal had informed both RPF and GRP in writing about the theft of the LCD TV and also some other valuables. He had also written a letter to the divisional railway manager (DRM) seeking information on railway's policy regarding thefts of cargo. DRM office had furnished a reply, along with a copy of the policy, stating that it was GRP's responsibility to register the offence.

Agrawal later sought information under Right to Information (RTI) Act from the railway board regarding the policy to be followed when a courier company's commodities get stolen. The railway board too informed him stating clearly that it is the responsibility of GRP to register the offence and investigate the matter.

GRP officials opted to ignore both DRM's and railway board's replies and preferred to look the other way stating that they cannot take decision unless their seniors gave them an order.

Additional superintendent of police, Nagpur rural, Prakash Jadhav, who is now holds the post of SP GRP, stated that he would look into the matter. "There was no reason why the FIR had been delayed," said Jadhav, who had taken charge earlier this month.