( 1 ) CHETRAM has been convicted under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and sentenced to one years R. I. The order was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1971 by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly by his order dated 21-4-1972.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that on 29-7-1969 Goods Train No. M. 4 DN. , during its run, halted near West Cabin of railway station Rosa at about 8:45 p. m, Tribhuwan Datt Tiwari (P. W. 1) and Ram Surat Singh (P. W. 3) both Rakshaks of the R. P. F. started patrolling the train respectively on its northern and southern sides. Rakshak Tribhuwan Datt Tiwari noticed that three persons were busy in removing a mustard bag from Wagon No. NR 28170. He raised an alarm where upon Ram Surat Singh, another Rakshak Girdhari Lai (P. W. 4) and a civil police constable Shah Alam (P. W. 5) arrived it the spot. They, all saw the three persons removing the bag. On seeing them, they left the bag on the northern side of the railway track and made a bid to run away. Two of them succeeded in escaping while the third, culprit who is the revisionist Chetcam, was apprehended at the spot, The bag containing mustard was found lying on the railway trade which was taken in their possession by the Rakshaka. A recovery memo was prepared on the spot. A sum of Rs. 65/-was also mentioned as it was found tied in handkerchief on the person of the applicant which he tried to pass on to the Rakshaks for his release. The applicant was taken to the B. P. F. Rosa where a case against him Was registered. He was duly prosecuted.

( 3 ) THE applicant denied for prosecution allegations and stated that he was brought from has house and was implicated falsely by the Bakshak with whom he had enmity. He examined Chokhey (D. W. 1), Tauley (D. W. 2) and Lakshmi Shanker (D. W. 3) in support of his defence. Bam Asrey Singh (P. W. 2) had admitted that he had given evidence against the applicant earlier at Shahjehanpur in a case under Section 379, Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) THE applicant badi filed a certified copy of a judgment in which all the accused including the applicant were acquitted. Cooksey (D. W. 1) and Tauley (P. W. 8) had van evidence to the effect that, the applicant was arrested from his village. Bpth the lower courts Appraised the entire evidence and had come to the conclusion that the prosecution case had been fully proved against the applicant It is not possible to make a reappraisal of this evidence. It has not been pointed out that the courts below have committed any illegality in appraising the: evidence.

( 5 ) IN this revision a ground has been taken that the provtaiansi of Section 3 of the Rajas Property (Unlawful Pos-session) Act of 1966 are virilative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Sri M. A. Anairi, ileamed counsel for the applicant drew my attention to -the Notified tion No. GSR 361 (E) Ministry of Hdnte affairs; Government of India dated 27-8-1875 published in the Eitraordmary Gazette of Uttar Pradesh dated 6-T-197s. By this Notification all proceedings pending in any Court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by5 Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constituting are to remain issues pended for the period during which proclamations of Emergency 1 mads under Clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution on December S. 1971 and June 29, 1975 are both in force, I have heard Sri Ansari in, order to satisfy myself whether there was rewoven in such a ground in which case the hearing of the reviskm had to be suspended. Sri An-flr% in ell fairness, referred to three authorities of the Supreme Court in which the validity of some provisions of other Acts was challenged. But those provisions were head to be valid and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the case of C. L Emden v State of Uttar Pradesh. " AIR 1960 Sri 543 : 1960 Cri 14 729) the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were challenged; Their Lordships of the Supreme C