JUDGMENT - BHOLE, J.:---This is an application by original accused No. 2 who along with one other accused was charged with an offence punishable under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. Accused No. 1 pleaded guilty and therefore, was convicted on his plea, but the present application pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He was later convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The matter went up in appeal but the Advocate of the accused as well as the accused both were absent. The appeal therefore was rejected. It is this order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that is now sought to be challenged. 2. On 20-4-1973 accused No. 1 Usman Kasam was caught in BAMY Yard while removing copper patties belonging to the Railways. On interrogation he admitted that he was committing theft of these copper patties and was selling them to the petitioner. The first accused after making this statement led the R.P.F. men and the panchas to the shop of the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to produce by accused No. 1, the copper patties and wires which were sold to him by him. The petitioner, therefore, produced the same but could not give any satisfactory explanation of his possession of the railway property. After the necessary investigation, therefore, both were charged with the offence punishable under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 3. As said earlier, the first accused pleaded guilty and, therefore, was convicted; the petitioner pleaded not guilty and said that the property was now proved to be the railway property. He claimed the property to be his own. 4. The prosecution have examined two witnesses Jagannath Prasad from the R.P.F. and Shaikh, who has identified the property to be the railway property. Jagannath has given the full story as to how the first accused was caught removing copper band patties from the Railway and how the first accused said that he was committing theft of railway property and selling it to the petitioner. After leading them to the shop of the petitioner the first accused told him to produce the railway property which he had sold to him. The property was produced by the petitioner and was seized under the panchanama. It is also admitted by the petitioner that the property was seized from his shop. After leading them to the shop of the petitioner the first accused told him to produce the railway property which he had sold to him. The property was produced by the petitioner and was seized under the panchanama. It is also admitted by the petitioner that the property was seized from his shop. The evidence of Jagannath as well as Shaikh went unchallenged because the petitioners Advocate was not present at all. The railway property which was found with the petitioner was about 20 Kg. in weight. I think the learned Magistrate was quite right in assessing the evidence of Jagannath as well as of Shaikh and coming to the conclusion that the prosecution have established the guilt against the petitioner. The petitioners statement which he gave in writing also doe not show how and why he had purchased the railway property from a young boy like the first accused. He had also not mentioned anything about how he came to possess the railway property. 5. Mr. Bhonsale, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, however, contends here that the petitioner was not given any opportunity at all by the trial Court and that therefore this Court should allow the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and therefore remand the case papers back to the trial Court for trial according to law. At any rate Mr. Bhonsale says that the case may be kept here in this Court and that this Court should direct the trial Court to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and also direct the Magistrate to sent the papers back later to this Court for disposal according to law. I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Bhonsale for the obvious reason that Jagannaths evidence was recorded on 9th July, 1973. The charge was framed and explained to the petitioner on 23-7-1973. It appears that on the next date the petitioner was absent and therefore a non-bailable warrant had to be issued against him. After accepting the plea of guilty by accused No. 1 on 9-8-1973 the case proceeded against the present petitioner when his Advocate Mr. Manjrekar prayed for time. The matter therefore was adjourned to 9-10-1973. The matter again appears to have been adjourned several times. From the record it appears that the petitioner was again absent on 29-11-1973 and therefore the matter had to be a adjourned to 4-1-1974. Manjrekar prayed for time. The matter therefore was adjourned to 9-10-1973. The matter again appears to have been adjourned several times. From the record it appears that the petitioner was again absent on 29-11-1973 and therefore the matter had to be a adjourned to 4-1-1974. After the panchanama was admitted on record by consent on 4-1-1974 Shaikhs evidence was recorded on 22-1-1974 on which date neither the petitioner nor his lawyer was present. It is mentioned by Mr. Bhonsale, the learned Advocate for the petitioner here that the case was taken up on 22-1-1974 at 4.30 p.m. when the petitioners Advocate was not present and that therefore, the two witnesses could not be cross-examined; but this petitioner had ample opportunities to request the Court on the next day but no such thing appears to have been done by him not only on 22-1-74 but also on the following day and also later until the petitioners statement was taken on 28-2-1974, the petitioner has slept tight and did not bother till 28-2-1974. Even on that date no application was made by the petitioner to the Court requesting that he should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Even after that nothing appears to have been done by him until the final order was passed on 31-5-1974. Evidently, therefore, the petitioner had ample time and opportunities to request the Court from 22-1-1974 to 28-2-1974 and from that day onwards till 31-5-1974 but nothing appears to have been done. On the top of it all it is significant also to notice that having challenged the order of the trial Court in appeal neither the petitioner nor his lawyer was again present at the time when the appeal was called. It is in these circumstances that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was constrained to reject the appeal and cancel the bail bond. I do not therefore think that Mr. Bhonsales complaint is justified when he says that no opportunity was given to the petitioner for cross-examining the witnesses. I think enough time was given to him and also enough opportunity was given to him to request not only the trial Court but also the Sessions Court. 6. But Mr. I do not therefore think that Mr. Bhonsales complaint is justified when he says that no opportunity was given to the petitioner for cross-examining the witnesses. I think enough time was given to him and also enough opportunity was given to him to request not only the trial Court but also the Sessions Court. 6. But Mr. Bhonsale contends that even as the evidence stands there is no proof that the property which was found in possession of the petitioner was the railway property and that it was reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. But, I do not think there is any substance in this contention because there is satisfactory evidence to show that the property which was found in possession of the petitioner was the railway property. The first accused had led Jagannath and panchas to the shop of the petitioner where he said that he had sold the stolen property. Jagannath showed this property to the Chief Signal Inspector of Lower Parel Depot and also to Shaikh who is the Shed Foreman of the Workshop at Bombay Central. Shaikh also said that the property before the Court was shown to him and that he certified it to be the railway property. His certificate dated 19-5-1973 is also there, in which he had stated that he was shown one bundle of copper patties containing 16 pieces and on examination he certified that the said type of material was being used in Railways for earthing plates. Now all this evidence goes unchallenged. There are circumstance as also to show that he was purchasing the railway property stolen by the first accused. But Mr. Bhonsale invites my attention to (Umar Khan v. State)1, 1973 Cri.L.J. 1706. That was a care under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and it was observed there that mere possession of the railway property does not constitute an offence within the meaning of the section but the prosecution must prove that the property found in possession of the accused belonged to or was in charge or possession of the railway administration and that mere possession of the articles manufactured by private firms for the use of railway administration cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as railway property as defined ins section 2(d) of the Act. Mr. Mr. Bhonsale, therefore, says that there is no such evidence to show that the property found with the petitioner was the railway property. As stated earlier, I think there is enough evidence and also circumstances to show that the property which was found with him is the railway property and he was certainly in possession of such property reasonably suspected of having been stolen. 7. I do not, therefore, think that there is any substance in the contentions, raised by the learned Advocate Mr. Bhonsale. I, therefore, dismiss this revision application and confirm the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Rule discharged. Leave to appeal to Supreme Court rejected. Accused shall surrender to his bail. ------