ORDER Mohd. Hamid Hussain, J. - This is a revision by Radhey Ahir against his conviction u/s 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 and the sentence awarded thereunder of eighteen months' RI. The conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Railway Magistrate by his order dated 23-5-1969 has been affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 14-4-1970. 2. The Applicant was a porter employed by the Railway Contractor in the transhipment Yard, Moghul Sarai. On 23-7-1968 he was found in possession of eight cycle tubes which the Applicant had wrapped round his waist. The eight cycle tubes recovered from the person of the Applicant were taken out of some parcel which was being transhipped in Wagon No. NR 70465. 3. After the necessary investigation the Applicant was prosecuted on the basis of evidence of three witnesses of recovery namely, S.D. Mazumdar (PW 1), Shiv Shanker Misra Rakshak (PW 2) and Makund Lal (PW4). On the basis of the evidence of the three recovery witnesses and the other evidence on record, the Applicant was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 4. Sri G.C. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the Applicant has contended; firstly, that the conviction of the Applicant u/s 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act was unlawful because he could be convicted u/s 379 of the IPC. According to the learned Counsel, the conviction of the Applicant under the special Act was ultra vires and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. His contention has no force. The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act being a special Act, will over-ride the provisions of Section 379 of the IPC which is a general Act. There is no question of Article 14 being violated by the conviction of the Applicant under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 5. The second contention of the learned Counsel is that the Investigating Officer Sri Man Singh (PW 5) had acted illegally and in violation of the specific provisions of Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure by making the witnesses sign their statements which he recorded during investigation. This contention of the learned Counsel also has no force. u/s 9 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act the Investigating Officer was empowered to summon persons to give evidence or produce documents or any other article during the inquiry which he was conducting under the Act. This contention of the learned Counsel also has no force. u/s 9 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act the Investigating Officer was empowered to summon persons to give evidence or produce documents or any other article during the inquiry which he was conducting under the Act. Section 9 Sub-clause (1) is to the following effect: An officer of the Force shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document, or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making for any of the purposes of this Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 9 is to the following effect: All persons, so summoned, shall be bound to attend either in person or by an authorised agent as such officer may direct and all persons so summoned shall be found to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements and to produce such documents and other things as may be required. Provided that the exemptions Under Sections 132 and 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1908, shall be applicable to requisitions for attendance under this section. Sub-section (4) of Section 9 is to the effect: Every such inquiry as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a "judicial proceeding" within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. From the above quoted provisions of Section 9 it is abundantly clear that u/s 9 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, Man Singh being an officer of the Railway Protection Force was invested with greater powers as an Investigating Officer than the powers as conferred on Investigating Officers Under Sections 160 and 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Investigating Officer is specifically required to examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no such restriction placed upon the Investigating Officer u/s 9 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. Section 14 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act provides: The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. There is no such restriction placed upon the Investigating Officer u/s 9 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. Section 14 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act provides: The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. In view of what has been stated above, the contention of the learned Counsel that the Investigating Officer acted illegally in getting the statements recorded by him signed by the witnesses has no force. 6. The third contention of Sri Bhattacharya, learned Counsel, is that the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer which had been signed by the witnesses were brought on record as evidence in the case and those statements were placed before the witnesses at the time of their deposition in court and the said statements were exhibited at the trial and therefore, the witnesses had the opportunity to refresh their memory on the basis of the statements recorded earlier by the Investigating Officer and this was an illegality and therefore the evidence of the recovery witnesses would be inadmissible in evidence. This contention of the learned Counsel is not borne out from the evidence on record. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer which have been signed by the witnesses are on the record but neither those statements have been exhibited nor there is any mention in the statements of any of the witnesses S.D. Mazumdar (PW 1), Sheo Shanker Misra (PW 2) and Makund Lal (PW 4) to indicate that the witnesses at the time of their deposition in court had seen those statements for refreshing their memory and on the basis of those statements deposed in court supporting the prosecution case. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Durga Prasad v. State 1971 AWR 175 . This case is not applicable to the facts of the instant case because the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer and which had been signed by those witnesses, were never put to the witnesses at the time of trial nor those statements have been exhibited. This contention of the learned Counsel has also no force. 7. Having examined the evidence on record I find that neither there is any illegality nor impropriety in the conviction of the Applicant. This contention of the learned Counsel has also no force. 7. Having examined the evidence on record I find that neither there is any illegality nor impropriety in the conviction of the Applicant. The sentence awarded also does not err on the side of severity. 8. The revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The Applicant shall surrender to serve out his sentence.