JUDGMENT - R.L. AGGARWAL, J.:---This Criminal Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 10-11-1975, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, dismissing Criminal Revision Application and confirming the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 35th Court, V.T. Bombay, dated 21-7-1976, convicting the petitioner of the offence punishable under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and sentencing the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The few facts which require to be narrated are that on 19-4-1974, Muchran Kushwaha a Railway Rakshak Badge No. 944 and another Rakshak Badge No. 1199, named Lalta Prasad, were on detection duty at Kurla in plain clothes from 20 hours of 8-4-1974 to 8 hours of 19-4-1974. While Mulcharan was watching OHE Workshop, Kurla, he saw at a distance of about 15 feet from platform No. 2, one person having a bag in his left hand and a bundle in his right hand. Another person was seen waiting on the gate of OHE Workshop. Mulcharan suspected some foul-play and apprehended that person and blew his whistle. Hearing the whistle Lalta Prasad came to the spot. Mulcharan took that person in to custody and deputed Lalta Prasad to inform Shri K.D. Tiwari Sub-Inspector, Railway Police Force, Kurla. On receipt of information S.I. Tiwari came to the workshop and found the petitioner in custody of Mulcharan. After carrying out necessary formalities a search of the person of the petitioner was taken under a panchnama. From the packet of the petitioner, a bunch of keys and other articles were found. The petitioner was found carrying 7 pieces of copper wires weighing about 18.05 Kgs. and the same were seized under another panchnama. After completion of the investigation, the petitioner along with another was put up for trial before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 35th Court, V.T. 3. At the hearing it appears that the main attack on the prosecution evidence was about the unreliability of the panch-witness, Rajaram Haddar who had earlier acted as a panch in 50 to 60 cases. The learned Magistrate was not impressed by that infirmity in the prosecution cases and held that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved beyond doubt. He accordingly convicted petitioner and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 4. The petitioner filed a Revision Application against his conviction and sentence. The learned Magistrate was not impressed by that infirmity in the prosecution cases and held that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved beyond doubt. He accordingly convicted petitioner and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 4. The petitioner filed a Revision Application against his conviction and sentence. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge also, the said contention about the panch being a professional panch and not an independent respectable person was repeated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on going through the evidence found that there was ample material to warrant the conviction of the petitioner and accordingly he dismissed the Revision Application. 5. In the present application Mr. Keswani the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Kashmirilal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh)1, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1868. That was a case under the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955. That Act defines "railway stores" as meaning any Article (a) which is the railway property of any railway administration and (b) which used or intended to be used in the construction, operation or maintenance of a railway. It provides by section 3 that if any person is found, or proved to have been in possession of article of railway stores reasonably suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained, and it cannot be satisfactorily explained how he came in possession, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years or fine or with both. Having regard to the said provisions. Their Lordship said that before any one can be changed with the offence under section 3 it must be shown that he was in possession of railway stores which by the definition does not include all articles which are the property of the railway administration but only those which are used or intended to be use in the construction, operation or maintenance of a railway, (emphasis are ours). Mere unlawful possession of the property of any railway administration is not an offence. The prosecution must also prove that the articles were being actually used or were intended to be used by the railway. In this context it is observed that any discarded or rejected property of the railway administration would be outside the definition of "railway stores". Mere unlawful possession of the property of any railway administration is not an offence. The prosecution must also prove that the articles were being actually used or were intended to be used by the railway. In this context it is observed that any discarded or rejected property of the railway administration would be outside the definition of "railway stores". For an article whether old or new may became unserviceable or outmoded and thus of no further use and no person can be charged under section 3 in respect thereof. Relying upon these observations Mr. Keswani contended that the copper wires found with the petitioner was scrap and mere possession thereof though it may be unlawful was not sufficient to convict him. Such a scrap material could have been purchased or otherwise acquired from the market. 6. The learned Counsel overlooks that we are concerned with "railway property" as defined under section 2 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (Act No. 29 of 1966) which Act consolidates and amends the law relating to unlawful possession of railway property and by section 16(1) it repealed the Railway States (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955. Act No. 29 of 1966 is more comprehensive than the repealed Act. The repealed Act was found to be ineffective is tackling the enormity of problems of theft and pilferers on Railway. Section 2(d) defines "Railway property" in these terms: "Railway property" includes any goods, money or valuable security or animal, belonging to, or in the charge or possession of, a railway administration." A comparative study of the repealed Act and the new Act shows that present definition is wider in its scope and includes more articles and things. 7. Unlawful possession of Railway property is made punishable under section 3 which reads as follows : "3. 7. Unlawful possession of Railway property is made punishable under section 3 which reads as follows : "3. Whoever is found, or is proved to have 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; (a) for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees; (b) for the second or a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine and in the absence of special and adequate reason to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than two years and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees." In order to prove the offence the prosecution has to establish three ingredients: (i) that the accused was found, or is proved to have been in possession of incriminating property, (ii) that the property is Railway property and (iii) that such property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. The prosecution must first given evidence to show that the Railway property belonged to or was in charge or possession of Railway administration and that there was cause for reasonable suspicion of such property being stolen or obtained unlawfully. Then the accused has to prove that his possession was lawful or that he acquired it by lawful means. The standard of only giving a satisfactory account under the repealed Act is given a go-bye. The present provisions are wider and more stringent. 8. In the present case the evidence has established that the petitioner was himself a Railway employee and was apprehended on the Railway premises and was found in possession of Railway property. The petitioner has failed to show that his possession was lawful. Mr. Keswani wanted us to reappreciate the evidence of the Railway employees, Anthony Santhias P.W. 4 who testified the article founded with the petitioner was Railway property and also identified it. The petitioner has failed to show that his possession was lawful. Mr. Keswani wanted us to reappreciate the evidence of the Railway employees, Anthony Santhias P.W. 4 who testified the article founded with the petitioner was Railway property and also identified it. Reappraisal of evidence in exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be permitted on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Mr. Keswani also referred to the case of (Uman Khan v. The State)2, 1973 Cri.L.J. 1706, but it is not necessary to deal with this authority because it does not advance the case of the petitioner. 10. In the result the application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. -----