Bakshi, J. :- This is a Government appeal against the acquittal of Ram Charan respondent for an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

2. The prosecution case is that at about 12.15 in the night of 28th and 29th March, 1969 Ratan Lal a senior Rakshak of the Railway Protection Force and some other members who were on patrol duty apprehended the respondent near coach N.R. 2418 on the railway line No. 1 holding a dynamo belt Ex. I in his hand. The respondent is also said to have made a confessional statement which was recorded by Sri Rahim Uddin, A.S.I. of R.P.F. It appears that the matter was enquired into by the officers concerned of the R.P.F. and a complaint was made by Sri Rahim Uddin Special Railway Magistrate, Jhansi who took cognizance of the case. The trial Magistrate after a consideration of the evidence on the record arrived at a conclusion that the offence against the respondent had been established. He, therefore, convicted the respondent under Sec. 3 of the said Act and sentenced him to R.I. for one year. The respondent filed an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jhansi vide his judgment and order dated 13-12-1969 whereby he has dismissed the complaint and set aside the order of conviction recorded by the Magistrate. Hence the present Government Appeal.

3. Before dealing with the merits of the case, the point of law that has been raised by the State counsel is that the Sessions Judge has erred in law in holding that the Magistrate could not take cognizance on the basis of the complaint which had been filed by Sri Rahim Uddin A.S.I., R.P.F. We shall now consider submission.

4. The court below in arriving at its conclusion on the question of cognizance has taken into consideration Section 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Before however, dealing with these sections it may be pointed out that under Section 190 of the Criminal P.C., a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of an offence.

(a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer;

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge of suspicion that such offence has been committed.

5. There is nothing in the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 which fetters the discretion of the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence in the circumstances narrated above i.e. either on an complaint or a report or an information received by him from any other person. There are several enactments which contain provisions that serve as a bar to a court taking cognizance of an offence. As a matter of fact, the Code of Criminal Procedure itself contains provisions whereby a court is barred from taking cognizance of an offence in certain circumstances unless a complaint in writing has been filed by a person or authority specified therein. In offences under the Arms Act also cognizance of an offence cannot be taken unless sanction for prosecution has been obtained. There are several other enactments which lay down that a complaint should be filed by a particular or specified officer before cognizance could be taken of an offence by the court. We do not find any such restrictions in the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. As such, there is nothing in this Act which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as contained in Section 190, Criminal P.C. referred to above.

6. Section 14 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act lays down that 'the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force'. There being nothing inconsistent in Section 190, Criminal P.C. we are of the opinion that the three modes which have been prescribed therein for a court to take cognizance of an offence are equally applicabl