The main legal point established is that an officer of R.P.F. conducting an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is not a police officer conducting an investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, cognizance taken on the report of the R.P.F. officer is invalid.

S.N. Jha, J.

The sole petitioner has been convicted under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year by the trial court, which was confirmed by the appellate court. Hence this revision application.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.10.1972 the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as "the R.P.F.") consisting of Rakshak Ram Lakhan Mishra, Bachcha Prasad and Ghan Shyam Shahi were escorting Sugar Special Goods Train from Chapra. When the train reached Vidyapatinagar railway station at about 4.00 p.m. and left at about 11.25 p.m., the informant Rakshak Ram Lakhan Mishra saw in the torch light that a bag of wheat was lying towards left side of the railway line. On the request of the informant, the railway guard stopped the goods train, the informant got down and rushed towards the bag when he saw that two persons were trying to lift it. The informant caught hold of the petitioner, who was standing near the railway line and other person is said to have fled away.

3. The informant, P.W.1, and others brought the petitioner with the wheat hag to the Bachchwara railway station and a first information report was lodged before the Assistant Sub Inspector R.P.F., who after recording the statement arrested the petitioner. The Assistant Sub Inspector, R.P.F. took up investigation and after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet before the Special Magistrate (Railway), Samastipur, who took cognizance of the case under Section 3 of the Act. Subsequently the case was transferred to the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, who disposed of the same with the conviction and sentence, as stated above.

4. The defence of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of one of the Rakshak, Chhedi Ram, of Vidyapatinagar R.P.F., since he has refused to do his house hold work.

5. The prosecution in order to substantiate the allegation against the petitioner has examined altogether six witnesses, out of them P. W. 1 is the informant, P. W. 2 is another Rakshak, P. W. 3 is the goods clerk posted at Bachhwara Railway Station, P. W. 4 is Nandlal Sinha, another Rakshak in whose presence the said wagon was inspected at Bachhwara, P. W. 5 is the Sub Inspector R.P.F., Samastipur and P. W. 6 is the Assistant Sub Inspector, R. P. F., who investigated the case and ultimately submitted charge sheet.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of conviction and sentence on the ground that since the R.P.F. personnel is not a police officer within the meaning of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), therefore, he cannot investigate and submit charge sheet pursuant to the investigation made by it, on which any cognizance can be taken by the magistrate. It was further contended that the conviction is wholly illegal since the alleged wheat has not been proved to he a railway property and the same has not been materially exhibited.

7. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decisions in the case of Balkishan A Devidyal v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 Criminal Law Journal page 1424 and Ramnaumi Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1977 Patna Law Journal Reports page 382.

8. Chapter XII of the Code deals with the information to the police and their power to investigation. Under Section 154 of the Code every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an Officer-in-charge of a Police Station shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant; and every such information whether given in writing or reduced to writing aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Gover