The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove unlawful possession of railway property beyond reasonable doubt, the significance of witness testimonies, and the burden of proof on the prosecution.

The Appellant/complainant has projected the instant criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment of acquittal dated 18.9.2003 in C.C.No.1928 of 1996 passed by the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. Learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.1928 of 1996, on 18.9.2003 had, inter alia, observed that ... the witnesses examined in the present case and in regard to many important features, they had deposed in a contradictory manner and therefore, a situation had arisen that the charge levelled against the respondents/accused was not able to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and ultimately by granting the benefit of doubt by holding that the charge under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, against the respondents was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, since they were found not guilty.

3. The Appellant/complainant being dissatisfied with the Judgment of acquittal on 18.9.2003 in C.C.No.1928 of 1996 on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, has preferred the present instant Appeal before this Court.

4. According to the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contends that the trial Court acquitted the second and third respondents/A.2 and A.3 by holding that they were not liable for the offence as no property was recovered from them is not correct in the eye of law. At this stage, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the possession ought to be a subsistence possession for the purpose of an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Further, it would suffice if the accused were proved to have been in possession of the property at any point of time.

6. That apart, the properties recovered from the first Respondent/Accused was at some previous point of time in possession of the second and third respondents/A.2 and A.3 and they had disposed of the same to the first respondent/A.1 and resultantly they were also liable in respect of an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

7. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellant proceeds to submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the unassailable evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.7 in regard to the seizure of the case properties and identification of the same during trial.

8. Also that, just because the witnesses turned hostile, it could not be held that the accused had not committed the offence in question.

9. Expatiating his submission, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the confessional statements of the respondents/accused, which were corroborated by clear and cogent evidences of P.W.1, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.13, were not taken into consideration by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective.

10. Finally, it is the submission of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the trial Court had committed an error in ordering return of sale proceeds of stolen Railway property of Rs.3,500/- to the first Respondent/Accused and the said act of the trial Court in this regard is an illegal one in the eye of law.

11. The case of the Appellant/complainant is that on 27.9.1995, from morning 9.15 a.m., till 10.00 a.m. at Chennai Villivakkam New Avadi Road at Door No.12, in the shop belonging to the Accused, namely, Sameena Traders, the copper chips worth about 5 kilos and 2 aluminum axle box covers were sold and the money of Rs.3,500/-was kept without any document in an unlawful manner and those properties were stolen by the second and third respondents/A.2 and A.3 from the Railway and sold the same in the shop of the first respondent/A.1. As such, the Respondents 1 to 3 were