Order This is a revision petition by the two accused persons, who have been convicted under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each with a default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, by the First Class Magistral, Raichur, in C.C. No. 165/3 of 1968 as per his order, dated nth June, 1969. The facts of the case briefly are that on 21st August, 1968 at about 8-30 p.m the Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force at Raichur, P.W. 1 Satyaraj, was, on patrol duty in the Railway yard of Raichur along with some Rakshakas. He noticed the two accused near the office of the Assistant Yard Master moving under suspious circumstances. P.W. 1 caught hold of them and sent for Panchas. The Assistant Yard Master (P.W. 2) and another person by name Krishnan Raju, also Assistant Yard Master, came to the spot. After their arrival the Sub Inspector searched the two accused persons and found three Life buoy soaps on the person of accused No. 1 and two Lite buoy soaps on the person of Accused No. 2. He drew up a panchanama Exhibit P-1 and arrested the two accused persons. On the information given by the accused persons, he noticed one of the wagons in the yard bearing No. C.R.C.C. 18117 having a body whole at the bottom portion. At his instance Venkatasubbiah (P.W. 3), Goods Clerk, noticed that there was no seal on one side of that wagon. He examined the contents of that wagon on 30th August, 1968 in the presence of P.W. 1 and others and found that 27 cartoons, each cartoon containing 72 life buoy soaps, missing. The two accused persons were working as Pointsman on the relevant date, and at the relevant date, and at the relevant time they were on duty. After investigation, the two accused were sent for trial. The prosecution examined the Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force (P W. 1), one of the Assistant Yard Masters (P.W. 2) and the Goods Clerk (P.W. 3). Both the accused pleaded not guilty. The learned Magistrate did not take into consideration the evidence of P.W. 2 as he was hostile to the prosecution. The prosecution examined the Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force (P W. 1), one of the Assistant Yard Masters (P.W. 2) and the Goods Clerk (P.W. 3). Both the accused pleaded not guilty. The learned Magistrate did not take into consideration the evidence of P.W. 2 as he was hostile to the prosecution. As the evidence of P.W. 3 was to the effect that he discovered some shortage on 8th August, 1968, he did not very much rely upon that evidence also. However, he took into consideration the recitals in Exhibit P-1 to the extent it corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 so far as it related to the finding of Lifebuoy soaps in the possesssion of the accused persons. The learned Magistrate was not correct in taking into consideration the recitals. Exhibit P-1 as it had not been proved by any one of the panchas. If that is discarded, what remains is the evidence of P.W. 1 only. Mr. V.S. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the accused, contended that the learned Magistrate was not Kustified in convicting the accused persons on the uncorroborated testimony of an Investigating Officer. It is no doubt, true, that the Courts should be slow to act on the uncorroborated testimony of investigating officers in regard to property discovered by them on making a search of the accused person. If law requires that such search must be made in the presence of two independent and respectable persons, then it is necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence in that behalf to corroborate the testimony of the Investigating Officer. These safeguards are provided with some object by the legislature and if they are deliberately broken, it is not for the accused to show that they have been prejudiced. The prejudice is on the face of the record. The object of panch witnesses is to provide evidence which is independent of Police. Where the law requires that the search made by an Investigating officer requires panch witnesses to be present, it is obligatory on the prosecution to produce that evidence in Order to corroborate the testimony of the Investigating Officer, only in such cases the Court insists corroboration In the absence of corroboration, Courts should be extremely careful in relying upon the uncorroborated testimony of the Investigating Officer. Apart from searches it is not a rule of law or practice that Police evidence must be corroborated. Apart from searches it is not a rule of law or practice that Police evidence must be corroborated. There may be cases even where the law requires independent witnesses to be present for the search in which circumstances may render it impossible to comply with those provisions. In such cases, the evidence about finding the property will be that of the Police Officers only. The Police Officers are competent witnesses and their evidence cannot be rejected merely because they are Police Officers. But their evidence must, however, be carefully examined and scrutinised. Therefore, there is no impediment in acting upon the uncorroborated testimony of Police Officers if that evidence is trustworthy. To give an example, where a person is seen carrying a bottle of liquor in his hands in a prohibited area and where under the law it is not obligatory to make a panchanama, it will be open to the Court to base a conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of Police Officers alone, if after examining that evidence carefully the Court feels satisfied that it is true. In the instant case, the two panchas, who according to P.W. 1 were present at the time the two accused persons were searched, were Assistant Yard Masters of that Railway Station. One of them, who was examined as P.W. 2, has stated that P.W. 1 took his signature to the panchanama on 22nd August, 1968, a day after the alleged seizure of the property. The other Assistant Yard Master has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution and in these circumstances, it is unsafe to rely upon the evidence of P.W. 1. Assuming that what P.W. 1 has stated is true, his evidence establishes the fact that the accused persons were found in possession of 5 Lifebuoy soaps. The question that arises for consideration is whether from this fact it could reasonably be inferred that the accused persons have committed an offence under section 3 of the Railway Property (unlawful possession) Act, 1966. Section 3 provides that whoever is found, or is proved to h?.ve been, in possession of any railway property, reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained shall, unless he proves that the railway property came into his possession lawfully, be punishable. Section 3 provides that whoever is found, or is proved to h?.ve been, in possession of any railway property, reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained shall, unless he proves that the railway property came into his possession lawfully, be punishable. It is clear from the provisions of this section, that to sustain a conviction under this section, the prosecution must prove that an accused person was found, or was proved to have been, in possession of any railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. “Railway Property” is defined in clause (d) of section 2 of the Act. According to that definition, Railway Property includes any goods, money or valuable security or animal, belonging to, or in the charge of possession of, a railway administration. Mr. Mandigi, appearing for the State, contended that the accused persons were found in possession of Lifebuoy soaps; one of the wagons in the Railway Yard, where these persons were on duty contained Lifebuoy soaps in cartoons, there was a body-hole beneath that wagon some soaps were found missing on 30th August, 1968, and from these facts it is reasonable to suspect that the accused persons had stolen the railway property. It is in evidence of P.W. 1 himself that one of the Rakshakas working under him, was watching the wagon in question and the other wagons in the yard. The evidence shows that there were other Rakshakas also whose duty was to watch the yard in order to see that no theft took place. P.W. 1 has no doubt stated in his evidence that at the instance of the accused persons he went near the wagon in question and noticed the body-hole. That evidence does not help the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the section. The evidence of P.W. 3 shows that at the instance of P.W. 1 he checked the wagon in question on 30th August, 1968 and on that day he noticed that 27 cartoons, each containing 72 soaps, missing. There is also evidence in this case to show that there were body-holes in some of the other wagons, similar to the one found in the wagon in question. It is admitted by the prosecution that one of the seals put to this wagon was not in tact. There is also evidence in this case to show that there were body-holes in some of the other wagons, similar to the one found in the wagon in question. It is admitted by the prosecution that one of the seals put to this wagon was not in tact. These circumstances at any rate do not indicate that on the day in question Lifebuoy soaps from the wagon had been stolen. Therefore the prosecution have failed to prove that the soaps found in the possession of the accused persons were railway property, reasonably suspected of having been stolen. Further, P.W. 1 has admitted that there were thefts in the yard very often prior to this incident and that every one suspected that the Rakshakas working under him, whose duty was to keep a watch over the entire area, were themselves responsible for the thefts in the yard. If really the soaps belonging to the Railway had been stolen on the day in question, there would not have been any difficulty to ascertain the same by inspecting the wagon in question immediately. From the fact that the Sub-Inspector did not do so and that the inspection of the wagon was done only on 30th August, 1968, it is possible to think that there was no theft all on the day in question and the accused were implicated in order to see that the allegations made against the Rakshakas, who were under his control, shifted to others. From the facts proved in the case, it is impossible to take the view that the accused persons Committed an offence punishable under section 3 of the Act. For the reasons stated above, I allow this petition, set aside the convictions and sentences passed against the accused persons (petitioners) and acquit them., S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.