( 1 ) THIS criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Session Judge, Hassan, confirming on appeal the judgment of the munsiff-Magistrate, Arsikere, convicting the two appellants for an offence under S. 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter called the Act) and sentencing them each to undergo R. I. for one year. The case of the prosecution was that 187 bags of jowar was booked on 4-8-73 from Mysore by the goods train and the consignment was kept in a wagon which reached Habbanaghatta Railway Station on the night between 6/7-8-73, At that railway station, eight of the jowar bags from the consignment were stolen and were kept underneath a culvert at a distance of about 30 or 40 yards from the station yard. As the seal of the wagon was found disturbed at the railway station of habbanaghatta, some information regarding theft was sent to the Head rakshak, RPF, Hassan (PW. 6 ). The latter in turn sent the information to his higher officer, the Sub-Inspector (PW. 1 ). After receiving the information, PW. 1 came to Habbanaghatta. PW. 6 also came to that station from Hassan. They reached Fabbanaghatta on 8-8-73 and the enquiry started. PW. 1, during the course of that enquiry found the two appellants accused near the culvert carrying each half bag full of jowar. Upon interrogation, the two accused gave information to PW. 1 that they had kept six of the jowar bags belonging to this consignment below the culvert. Accordingly, at the instance of the two accused, six jowar bags were recovered from the culvert. On 9-8-73, the statements exts. P4 and P5 as made by the two accused were recorded by PW. 1. ( 2 ) AS the seal of the wagon was found tampered with at Habbahaghatta, fresh seal was put on one side of that wagon, the other side was found duly sealed as that seal was put at Mysore, the starting station. Thereafter, the wagon was sent in that sealed condition to Arsikere station and on 11-8-73, in the presence of that station-master, the wagon was opened and instead of 187 jo'wer bags only 179 bags were found. In this manner, eight jowar bags were found short. Thereafter, the Chief goods Clerk, Arsikere (P. W. 2) sent a message (Ex. P. 8) in respect of the theft. In this manner, eight jowar bags were found short. Thereafter, the Chief goods Clerk, Arsikere (P. W. 2) sent a message (Ex. P. 8) in respect of the theft. On that basis, the complaint was filed before the Magistrate. ( 3 ) THE prosecution produced six witnesses of whom P. W. 1 and p. W. 6 belonged to the R. P. F. and they, in fact, conducted the enquiry. PW. 4, the Commercial clerk, Mysore, came to establish that 187 bags of jowar were loaded at Mysore in that wagon. The Chief Goods Clerk (P. W. 2) of Arsikere was also produced. Besides them, the other two witnesses were P. W. 3 and P. W. 5 who were the mahazar witnesses for the recovery of the two half bags and the other six full bags lying underneath the culvert. The defence of the two accused was one of bare denial. They-did not produce any defence witness. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the two accused under S. 3 of the Act and sentenced them each to undergo R. I. for one year. They came in appeal before the learned sessions Judge but did not succeed. Thereafter, A-2 filed a revision in this court. However, A-1 was made respondent in the revision but subsequently his name was deleted. ( 5 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner-accused that the statements Exts. P-4 and P-5 recorded by the officer of the Force during the course of the enquiry, could not be read in evidence in view of S. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But this controversy seems to have been brought to rest by the Supreme Court in their decision in State of u. P. v. Durga Prasad, AIR. 1974 SC. 2136. Their Lordships held that an enquiry under s. 8 (1) under the Act shall not be considered an investigation under the crlpc. That being so, S. 162 of the Code will not be applicable. The result is that the two statements Exhibits P4 and P5 could be read in evidence and were rightly believed by the Courts below. The learned counsel then pointed out that these two statements were recorded on 9-8-73. and submits on that ground that the two statements be considered as of doubtful validity. The result is that the two statements Exhibits P4 and P5 could be read in evidence and were rightly believed by the Courts below. The learned counsel then pointed out that these two statements were recorded on 9-8-73. and submits on that ground that the two statements be considered as of doubtful validity. In fact, the entire thing will depend upon the statements of P. W. 1 and P. W. 6 who virtually conducted the enquiry and interrogated the two accused. If their statements are believed, hardly anything is left out to disbelieve the subsequent statements Exhibits P4 and P5. While the two accused were examined by the court, these two statements were specifically put to them and they had the opportunity to explain them. In these statements, the two accused very much affirmed that they had committed theft of 7 of the jowar bags and that they had stored them underneath the culvert. To my mind, these two statements will bring home the charge in as much as possession of the railway property by the two accused will then be proved. It is immaterial that at the time of the actual arrest, the two accused were not found in physical possession of the six jowar bags. The said bags are recovered at a short distance and their statements ext. P-4 and P. 5 sufficiently indicate that these were stored by them underneath the culvert. ( 6 ) AS regards the half bags found in possession of the two accused, the bag being actually carried by A-2, did not possess the railway marks and perhaps on that ground it could be stated that A-2 was not in possession of the property presumbly suspected of having been stolen from the railway. But these circumstances will be immaterial in view of the statement Ext. P-5, wherein A-2 admitted that he stored the other six jowar bags underneath the culvert. He was found in unlawful possession, at any rate, of those six jowar bags and that will bring home the charge against him. The two statements of P. W. 1 and P. W. 6, even though they are officers of the Force, could be relied upon. He was found in unlawful possession, at any rate, of those six jowar bags and that will bring home the charge against him. The two statements of P. W. 1 and P. W. 6, even though they are officers of the Force, could be relied upon. Besides them the statement of P. W. 4 clearly indicated that 187 jowar bags were loaded in that wagon and in view of the statement of P. W. 2, the Chief Goods Clerk of arsikere, 8 of the bags were found short. The two mahazar witnesses p. W. 3 and P. W. 5 turned hostile and their statements could be ignored. One of them is a co-employee of these accused. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel then submitted that the wagon should not have been sent from Habbanaghatta to Arsikere and that why the said wagon was opened only on 11-8-73. He also raised a little objection as to the sealing of the wagon once again at Habbanaghatta. Further he stated that the two accused being patrol men employed by the railway, could not have committed the theft in as much as at Habbanaghatta, the station master was deputed and. perhaps the other patrol men were also present on duty. In my opinion, all these suggestions made by the learned Counsel will not carry forward the case any further in favour of the petitioner-accused. The wagon was sent to argikere station, presumably because of the version of the two accused exts. P4 and P5, which inter alia indicated that the Station Master of habbanaghatta was himself involved to some extent in committing this theft. That is why, the authorities must have thought it better to get the wagon opened at another railway station. As regards the sealing of the wagon at Habbanaghatta, it was necessary because one of the seals was found tampered with. The wagon was decidedly to be re-sealed before its contents were to be checked on a subsequent date. To say that the petitioner-accused could not have committed theft in the presence of the Station-master or other patrol men, is meaningless in the circumstances. The wagon was decidedly to be re-sealed before its contents were to be checked on a subsequent date. To say that the petitioner-accused could not have committed theft in the presence of the Station-master or other patrol men, is meaningless in the circumstances. The learned Counsel then contended that the first message received from Habbanaghatta by P. W. 2 could perhaps be the F. I. R. Be it as it may, but that will not go to vitiate the enquiry nor will that fact be taken into consideration to hold that the charge was not proved against the petitioner. As I have stated above, the entire case depended upon the belief to be reposed in the statements of PW. 1 and PW. 6 and as long as they could believed by the trial judge, the matter ended and the two accused could be stated to be found in unlawful possession of the railway property. The learned Counsel. then stated that although the two accused were arrested on 8-8-73, they were produced before the magistrate on 10-8-73. But as the judgment of the court below indicates there was no delay in the production of the accused because time was taken in travelling from one station to the other. The identification of the jowar was no longer required because six gunny bags contained the necessary railway marks. That was sufficient to identify then as belonging to the very same consignment. The witnesses P. W. 2 and P:w. 4 have also testified to that fact. ( 8 ) WHILE sitting in revision, this court could only interfere with the findings of the two Courts below if there was any compelling reasons to do so. In the result, the revision petition has no force. The same is dismissed. --- *** --- .