The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove that seized properties are railway properties and unlawfully possessed under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23.10.1997 and made in C.C.No.1716 of 1987 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, praying to set aside the judgment of acquittal.

This appeal is filed by the complainant/State, viz., Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Avadi, against the acquittal of the accused, as per the judgment dated 23.10.1997 and made in C.C.No.1716 of 1987 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, in respect of the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The Criminal Case in C.C.No.1716 of 1987 was filed against the respondents/accused under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In the complaint it is stated that on 06.6.1987 at 4.30 a.m., while the Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Avadi, was patrolling with his party near Avadi Car shed, the first accused was found in unlawful possession of one grey colour Rexine cloth, M.O.2, with railway marks covered in a dungry cloth, M.O.1, and he was arrested since he was not having any authority for the possession of the said cloth and the case was registered in Crime No.3 of 1987 under Section 3(a) of the Act. The properties M.Os.1 and 2 were seized under Mahazar Ex.P.1. The confession statement of the first accused (admissible portion is Ex.P.2) was recorded in the presence of P.W.8-Murthy and one Ramu-P.W.9 and on the basis of such confession, the house of the second accused was searched where one ceiling fan with regulator (Ranjan make), M.O.3, with private marks and railway marks as ELC/TRL was found in unlawful possession of the second accused; the same was seized under Search List Ex.P.4; the second accused was arrested and his confession statement (admissible portion is Ex.P.6) was recorded. On the basis of the confession of the second accused, the house of the third accused was subjected to search from where one wooden main switch with mark ELC/O/TRL, M.O.4, was seized under Search List Ex.P.5; the third accused was also arrested on the same day and his confession statement (admissible portion is Ex.P-6) was recorded under Ex.P.7. The statements of the witnesses P.W.2 Murthy and P.W.9 Ramu were recorded under Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 respectively. All the three accused were brought to the Station with properties seized; and they were sent for remand and after completion of investigation, final report was filed.

3. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, framed charge under Section 3(a) of the Act, against the accused.

4. The complainant in proving the case against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-19. M.Os.1 to 4 were also marked on the side of the complainant. No witness was examined on the side of the accused. The trial Court, mainly relying on the evidence of P.W.5 - R.Sivalingam, Assistant Shop Superintendent of New Car Shed at Avadi, who has stated in his evidence that he cannot say from where M.O.2 Rexine cloth was stolen and that since there is railway mark in M.O.2, it cannot be said that the said property is the railway property, as stated in the Certificate, Ex.P.13, issued by him and that there is no other document to show that M.O.2 Rexine cloth is the railway property and also considering the evidence that he cannot say that as to what is written in Hindi in the Railway Seal contained in M.O.2, and further taking into consideration of the evidence of Duraibabu - P.W.7 that he has no records to show that the second accused has been residing in his house as a tenant and since V. Chandran – P.W.8, Revenue Officer, has stated in his evidence that he does not know about the issuance of Ex.P.16 Certificate, ultimately, recorded finding that the charge under Section 3(a) of the Act, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and in that view, acquitted the accused from the