The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, emphasizing the definition of railway property and the consequences of unlawful possession.

( 1 ) THIS criminal revision has been preferred by Sheesh Ram and Sharda Nand Pandey against the judgment and order dated 8th October, 1986, passed by Additional Sessions judge, Moradabad, in criminal appeal No. 63 of 1986, confirming the judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate, railways, Moradabad dated 7. 4. 1986, whereby the learned Railway Magistrate convicted the said two revisionists for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and sentencing each of them to undergo R. I. for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 5007 -. The learned Sessions Judge has modified the sentence and reduced the same to one year R. I. and Rs. 5007- as fine and in default, three months R. I.

( 2 ) THE occurrence is said to be dated 7. 4. 1980. It is said that S. I. , R. P. F. , Shri Ganga Sadhu singh P. W. 2 along with Shri Sheo Nath Singh, constable, R. P. F. was on patrolling duty in up-hump yard at the Railway Station, Moradabad. It was about 3. 10 a. m. , when they were near a culvert, they felt some rattling noise at line No. 3 they went ahead and noticed the R. P. F. Guards, the two revisionists were taking two cartoons (Petis) of XXX skipper rums from stationary wagon No. CR 57627, which was then packed at Railway Line No. 3. They noticed that the said rum cartoons were being taken out after breaking open the northern gate of the Wagon. They caught hold of these two revisionists/accused along with two cartoons of the rum, which was allegedly Railway property having been booked from Unnao to New Delhi for carriage. A memo of recovery was prepared and on that basis a report was registered and after due investigation, the two revisionists were charge-sheeted.

( 3 ) THE revisionists denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in all. P. W. 1, Head Constable, R. P. F. Sheo Nath Singh, p. W. 5 S. I. Shri Ganga Sadhu Singh are said to be the eye witnesses, who had apprehended the two revisionists on the spot while taking away the two rum cartoons from the Wagon. The learned Magistrate believed the evidence of the said witnesses and convicted and sentenced them. The appeal preferred by them against their conviction was dismissed but the sentence was modified and reduced to one year R. I. and Rs. 500/- as fine.

( 4 ) IT is against these two orders, the present revision has been filed, wherein the order of conviction and sentences passed on the revisionists, have been challenged.

( 5 ) I have heard Shri J. N. Chaturvedi, the learned senior counsel for the revisionists, who is assisted by Shri R. C. Yadav, Advocate. I have also heard the learned A. G. A. and examined the record.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the revisionists has filed written arguments also on 14. 5. 2002, which is on the record.

( 7 ) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel that the mandatory provisions for search and seizure were not followed by the arresting officer and there is no compliance of Section 50 (1) and 100 (3) (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 22 of the Constitution of India and that the recovery memo does not bear the signature of the accused revisionists.

( 8 ) BEFORE examining the merit of the contention advanced by the learned Counsel, it would be relevant to quote the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows: 22 (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.

( 9 ) SECTION 50 (1) and 100 (3) (7) Cr. P. C. reads as follows: 50 (1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. 100 (3) Where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspec