S.N.Pathak, J.

1. This revision is directed against the Judgment passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Katihar, in Cr. Appeal No. 71/97 whereby the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court passed by the Railway Magistrate, Katihar, in Case No. CII 13/91, T..R. No. 143/97.

2. The revisionist was convicted under Sec. 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the RP(UP) Act.

3. It was submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner was based on confessional statement of co-accused Jitu Chaudhary, a rickshaw puller who was carrying 40 kgs of alleged railway coal. There is no evidence against the petitioner for selling alleged coal to Jitu Chaudhary. So prosecution, and the conviction of the petitioner were both bad in law.

4. On perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court and the same of the trial Court, it transaction that six witnesses have been examined and out of whom many of the witnesses are seizure list witnesses including personnel of RPF. One independent witness of the seizure list has been declared hostile and none of the witnesses said that in his presence revisionist was seen selling alleged coal to Jitu Chaudhary. All the witnessed rather had witnesse that the alleged