JUDGMENT :

Through Video Conferencing

Heard Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party - State of Jharkhand.

3. This revision application has been filed by the two petitioners against the judgement dated 06.03.2003 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 188 of 1996 by the court of learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau whereby the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed.

4. The petitioners were convicted vide judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.1996 passed in R.P. Case No. 23/1992, T.R. No. 99 of 1996 by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 3 of Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as R.P.U.P. Act of 1966).

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while assailing the impugned judgements, has submitted that the impugned judgements are perverse and are fit to be set-aside. He has submitted that neither the seized art