The admissibility of confession statements and the proof of possession of stolen railway properties are crucial in establishing guilt under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act.

(Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 25.11.2003 passed in C.A.No.49 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Poonamallee, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by judgment dated 23.6.2003 in C.C.No.313 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee.)

The revision petitioner is A-3 in C.C.No.313 of 1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee. This revision is filed against the conviction and sentence of imprisonment till raising of the Court and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months, imposed on the third accused for an offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act in C.C.No.313 of 1994 as per judgment dated 23.6.2003 and as confirmed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Poonamallee, as per judgment dated 25.11.2003 in C.A.No.49 of 2003.

2. The brief facts that led to the filing of this revision petition are as follows:-

"(a) Pursuant to the confession statement Ex.P.7 (admissible portion) given by the revision petitioner/ A-3 and the confession statement Ex.P.6 (admissible portion) given by the co-accused A-2, P.W.1, Inspector, Avadi RPF Station, obtained search warrant Ex.P.1 on 05.8.1994 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, and made search of the shop belonging to A-1 Paul Pandian in the name of "Waste Paper Mart" at Door No.1/20, Trunk Road, Varadharajapuram, Poonamallee. In the said search, one L & T Track Relay M.O.1, three ACP Plates M.O.2 Series, 8 Band Roll Clips M.O.3 Series and one Fish Plate M.O.4 belonging to Railways with Railway marks were recovered as per search list Ex.P.2. At the time of search in the shop of A-1, he gave confession statement Ex.P.3 and A-2 and A-3 also gave confession statements Ex.P.4 and P.5 (admissible portions) respectively. The accused A-1 to A-3 were sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate along with the properties M.O.1 to M.O.4.

(b) P.W.5 Sridhar, Engineer, on examining the properties M.O.2 to 4, on 26.9.1994 gave certificate Ex.P.15 to the effect that the said properties were Railway properties. The Signalling Department Staff P.W.4 Jayaraman examined M.O.1 series and gave Certificate Ex.P.17 that they are the Railway properties. After completion of investigation, the complaint was filed against A-1 to A-3".

3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined on the side of the complainant and Exs.P.1 to P.31 were marked besides M.O.1 to M.O.4. But no oral or documentary evidence was let in on the side of the accused.

4. The trial Court, considering such evidence adduced on the side of the complainant and the Exhibits and Material Objects marked, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and convicted and sentenced them as set out above. On appeal in C.A.No.49 of 2003 by the accused A-1 to A-3, the first Appellate Court, by judgment dated 25.11.2003, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, as confirmed by the first Appellate Court, is under challenge in this revision by A-3.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner / A-3 and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner / A-3 submitted that false case has been foisted against A-3, who was employed as Master Craftsman in the Railway Signal Department. It is also submitted that the confession statement said to have been made by A-3 has not been proved in accordance with law by examining the independent witness, who has attested the same. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, since Ex.P.7 confession statement of A-3 has not been proved, conviction passed by the trial Court solely on