The accused's failure to provide any explanation or plea regarding the unlawful possession of railway properties led to the affirmation of the conviction. The court also exercised its discretion under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to grant probation and impose an additional fine.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri.Desu Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.V.S.Vinayaka, learned HCGP for the State-respondent and perused the records.

2. This revision petition is filed by the accused who suffered an order of conviction under the provisions of 3A of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (in short "RP (UP) Act") and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 with a default sentence of one year, which was confirmed in Crl.A. No.189/2012.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

ASI of Railway Protection Force, Mysore on 5/7/2008 at about 4.10 p.m., spotted one Nagaraju with unlawful possession of railway properties. He was intercepted and enquired. He revealed that on earlier occasion also, he has stolen the railway properties and sold the same. Thereafter, the head of the raid party seized the railway properties, which were in the possession of the revision petitioner, drafted a mahazar and filed a report. Based on the same, a case came to be registered against the revision petitioner and investigated in detail culminating him by filing a charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty. Hence, trial was held. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all, six witnesses were examined comprising of head of the raid party and other two police personnel, mahazar witnesses and investigation officer as PWs.1 to 6. Prosecution also relied on 31 documents, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P31 comprising of complaint, mahazar, report and statement of the charge sheet witnesses. Material objects viz., aluminum wall protector, screwdriver, aluminum beading and seven fish cocks and cash of Rs.5,410.00 were marked by the prosecution as MOs.1 to 6. Thereafter, statement of the accused as contemplated under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate. Accused having understood the incriminatory materials found in the prosecution case, denied the same. However, the accused did not offer any explanation or say his version with respect to the incident either at the time of recording the accused statement or by examining himself. He also failed to place on record any written statement as is contemplated under Sec. 313 (5) of Cr.P.C. Taking note of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after duly appreciating the same and in the absence of any explanation offered by the accused, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence and passed an order of sentence as referred to supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the District Court, Mysore in Crl.A.No.189/2012. The learned Judge in the first Appellate Court after securing the trial Court records and re-appreciating the entire materials on record dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is in revision.

4. In this revision petition, the grounds raised by the revision petitioner have been called out hereunder:

9. The Lower Courts have committed grave error in law in taking the cognizance of the offence and as such the conviction is bad in law.

10. The Lower Courts has erred in law in accepting and acting upon the Evidence of prosecution witnesses which is being inadmissible.

11. The evidence taken by the Lower courts is manifestly erroneous and argument employed by the Lower Courts for convicting the Petitioner utterly unsustainable in law.

12. The learned Magistrate failed to observe the fact that, there is lot of omissions and contradictions and improvements with respect to the evidence adduce by prosecution witnesses and the same have been overlooked by the Lower Courts.

13. The Lower Courts failed to observe the fact that, the C.W.1 who examined as P.W.1 deposed with regard go the incident, drawing panchanama, recording the