JUDGMENT - M.S. APTE, J.:---This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent-accused by the trial Magistrate of the charge under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act". 2. It appears from the prosecution evidence that 15 bundles, each containing 100 copies of a magazine called Shama, were booked from Delhi for being carried from Delhi Railway Station to Bombay (Dadar) under parcel way Bill bearing No. 294507 dated 21-10-1972. This parcel was carried by Delhi-Bombay Janata Express on the same day which arrived at Bombay Central Railway Station at about 10.10 p.m. on the night of 23rd October, 1972. At the time this train arrived, P.W. 2 Hariharprasad Mishra, who is Rakshak No. 394 attached to the Railway Station Protection Force, was on duty at the Bombay Central Railway Station. On the arrival of the train, he used to check the seals on the parcel waggons of the train. When he went to the off side of the platform, he noticed the respondent-accused carrying one bundle in one of his hands and five loose copies of magazine in another. On suspicion, this Rakshak caught the accused and accosted him and took him to the office of the Sub-Inspector of the Railway Protection Force at Bombay Central Railway Station. Immediately S.I. Meena (P.W. 1) was called from his quarters which are close by. The Sub-Inspector was informed by Hariharprasad Mishra, the Rakshak, as to the circumstances in which he had caught the accused. The panchas were called and the loose magazines and the parcel which was in a broken condition were seized under the panchnama, Exh B; the packet contained the remaining 95 magazines. S.I. Meena then recorded the statement of the accused which is produced at Exh. D in which the accused admitted to have removed that bundle from Train Rack No. 7124 which was attached to Delhi Janata Express, which is called 24 UP. Train. The accused was then arrested and was prosecuted for being found in possession of railway property which was suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained. 3. The accused having denied the charge was tried by the learned Magistrate. 4. Train. The accused was then arrested and was prosecuted for being found in possession of railway property which was suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained. 3. The accused having denied the charge was tried by the learned Magistrate. 4. At the trial, besides examining the Rakshak, Hariharprasad Mishra, and S.I. Durgaprasad Meena, the prosecution also examined the panch Murlidhar and Dave the employee at the Dadar Railway Station who was on duty for delivery of packages of railway consignments at Dadar on 24-10-1972, and also parcel clerk Shaikh (P.W. 5) who was on duty at the Bombay Railway Station on that day as unloading clerk. 5. Hariharprasad narrated the circumstances in which he happened to apprehend the accused and produced him before the Sub-Inspector. The sub-Inspector also gave evidence that he made enquiries and recorded confessional statement of the accused, Exh. D, in which the accused admitted to have removed that bundle from the said train. The panch Murlidhar also gave evidence that the five loose magazines and a carton containing 95 magazines were also seized from the accused in his presence. The other two witnesses stated that the shortage of one package was detected in the consignment of 15 packages which were received by Delhi Janata Express on that day under Way Bill No. 294507. 6. The accused while being examined under section 342, stated that he would file his written statement instead of making statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly he filed his statement in writing in which he denied all the allegations made against him. 7. The learned Magistrate delivered perfunctory judgment and disbelieved the prosecution witnesses with the result that the accused was found not guilty of the offence charged and was acquitted. Hence this appeal by the State. 8. Mr. Kamat for the appellant-State urged that the learned Magistrate was thoroughly wrong in disbelieving the prosecution witnesses. According to him, there was no reason to disbelieve the various witnesses. There is great force in this argument. 9. Hence this appeal by the State. 8. Mr. Kamat for the appellant-State urged that the learned Magistrate was thoroughly wrong in disbelieving the prosecution witnesses. According to him, there was no reason to disbelieve the various witnesses. There is great force in this argument. 9. As I have already stated above, the evidence of Hariharprasad, Railway Protection Force Rakshak, discloses that soon after the arrival of Delhi Janata Express on that night, the accused was found carrying five loose copies of magazine Shama and broken bundle containing 95 copies of the same magazine and on suspicion when he was taken to the office of the Railway Protection Force, the Sub-Inspector was called and S.I. Meena also made enquires with the accused. Before him the accused admitted to have removed this bundle from Rack No. 7124 attached to Delhi Janata Express which arrived on that day at about 10 p.m. at Platform No. 5 at Bombay Central Railway Station. It is submitted that this confession would not be admissible inasmuch as it was made to the Investigating Officer. But a member of the Railway Protection Force is not a police officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 10. Apart from this, there is other evidence in the case to establish that the accused was in fact carrying this bundle which was entrusted to the railway administration for being transported from Delhi to Bombay. It was one of the 15 packets which were so entrusted under Way Bill No. 294507. The evidence of Shaikh and Dave shows that when the train arrived, one packet was found missing and only 14 packets were received. It is true that there is some confusion as to the memo, Exh. C which has been issued about the shortage of one packet. Dave stated that the memo was issued by him whereas Shaikh stated that this memo was issued by him. But this discrepancy in the evidence does not materially effect the prosecution evidence, since the fact that one of the bundles out of 15 bundles was found with the accused is satisfactorily established by the other evidence. 11. In the face of this evidence, therefore, it appears to me that the learned Magistrate was in error in disbelieving the prosecution evidence. 11. In the face of this evidence, therefore, it appears to me that the learned Magistrate was in error in disbelieving the prosecution evidence. The learned Magistrate has for no reason whatsoever discarded the testimony of Hariharprasad and S.I. Meena by merely observing that there was a material discrepancy in the two statements. But on careful reading of the evidence of the witnesses, there is no discrepancy at all, much less material. The reasons given by the learned Magistrate to disbelieve the other evidence are also equally untenable. In fact, there are no reasons which can really be called reasons given by the learned Magistrate to disbelieve the remaining witnesses. In my view, therefore, the learned Magistrate was wrong in discarding the prosecution evidence and in acquitting the accused. The prosecution has substantially established that the accused was in possession of one of the 15 parcels which were entrusted to the Railway administration for being carried from Delhi to Bombay and there was reasonable ground to suspect that he had stolen or unlawfully obtained that parcel. The offence under section 3 of the Act has, therefore, been clearly established. 12. This is the first offence proved against the accused. For the first offence under Clause (a) of section 3, minimum sentence prescribed is one year and a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1000/-. Of course, in cases where there are special and adequate reasons, the Court is empowered to award lesser than the minimum sentence. But in this case no such reasons are pointed out except that the accused is of 24 years of age. 13. Mr. Patil, who appears for the respondent, also submitted that having regard to the age of the accused, he should be given benefit of section of the Probation of Offenders Act and the accused be released on bond with or without sureties. He urged that even in cases of offences under the Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act, courts have given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act of the accused. In this connection, he invited my attention to (State by Public Prosecutor v. Rathinavelu)1, 1973, Cri.L.J. 354. It is true that in that case it appears that the trial Court had given benefit of section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused and had released him on executing a bond of Rs. In this connection, he invited my attention to (State by Public Prosecutor v. Rathinavelu)1, 1973, Cri.L.J. 354. It is true that in that case it appears that the trial Court had given benefit of section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused and had released him on executing a bond of Rs. 300/- with two sureties to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. The State went in revision against that order and the High Court refused to interfere in the discretion exercised by the trial Court. 14. In my opinion, in the present case to give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to such an offender would amount to misplaced clemency. It is well known that the offences of railway property are very much on the increase day by day and that is why the Legislature in its wisdom thought it necessary to lay down the minimum sentence of one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In order to carry out the policy of the Legislature, therefore, I think in the present case it would not be proper to give benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of acquittal is set aside and the respondent is convicted of the offence charged against him under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and for this offence he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- , in default of payment of fine, the accused to undergo further R.I. for two months. Warrant to issue. -----