JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra, dated 20--9--1973, dismissing the appeal filed by' the applicant. The aforesaid appeal had been preferred by the applicant against the order of the Special Railway Magistrate 1st Class, Aligarh, convicting him u/s 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (briefly stated as 'the Act'), and sentencing him to one year's R. I. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 8th March, 1971, at about 10.30 a.m. when Rakshak Mohan Lal, Rakshak Kedar Singh, Rakshak Mohammad Haleem were patrolling on the down yard of Tundla Railway Station, they found the applicant going stealthily under suspicious circumstances. He was challenged by these persons. The applicant tried to run away, but these Rakshaks succeeded in arresting him. On search, a dynamo belt was found in a bag, which was being carried by the applicant. The Memo (Ext. Ka-1) was prepared thereafter on the spot and the article was sealed, and a report was lodged at 12.10 p.m. on the same day at R. P. F. post Tundla. After investigation, the applicant was prosecuted. 3. The prosecution produced three witnesses. The applicant pleaded not guilty and asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the case on account of his quarrel with Rakshak Mohammad Haleem. 4. Believing the case of the prosecution, the Magistrate found that the dyanmo belt found from the possession of the applicant belonged to the Railways, and that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case against the applicant beyond all reasonable and probable doubts. On this finding, the Magistrate convicted the applicant u/s 3 of the Act and awarded him the minimum sentence of one year prescribed for the offence. In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the applicant were maintained. Hence, this revision. 5. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant was that as the provisions of Section 3 of the Act are hit by Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, the conviction of the applicant is unjustified in law. In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the applicant were maintained. Hence, this revision. 5. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant was that as the provisions of Section 3 of the Act are hit by Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, the conviction of the applicant is unjustified in law. Elaborating his submission, counsel submitted that in so far as the legislation discriminates against an accused charged with an offence under the Railway Property) Unlawful Possession) Act from the accused charged with an offence under the general law by casting upon him a heavier burden, Section 3 is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. It is no doubt true that Article 14 of the Constitution abhors discrimination, but it docs not prohibit a reasonable classification for the reasonable object falling in the same class. But as all the persons who have to be tried u/s 3 of the Act are equally treated, and as Section 3 does not make any discrimination it is not possible to uphold the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant. As stated above, Article 14 of the Constitution does not prohibit a reasonable classification between persons who are accused of the offences under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and persons who commit offences outside the Act. 6. Linked with the above, the next submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant was that as the President of India by means of an Ordinance promulgated under Article 359 of the Constitution has stayed the proceedings pending in the Courts of law relating to enforcement of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, therefore, the present revision is liable to be stayed. The submission made is untenable. A close reading of Article 359 of the Constitution would show that it only purports to take away the right of a Court to enforce the right claimed on the basis of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. It does not take away the jurisdiction of a Court to decide a case where the Court does not accept the argument relating to the enforcement of such a right in a pending case. Accordingly, the submission cannot be entertained. 7. It does not take away the jurisdiction of a Court to decide a case where the Court does not accept the argument relating to the enforcement of such a right in a pending case. Accordingly, the submission cannot be entertained. 7. The third submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant was that u/s 13 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, only a superior officer or any member of the force, not below the rank of (sic) senior Rakshak, has been authorised to make a search, and as in the instant case the search was made by the ordinary Rakshaks who did no fulfil the qualifications of either being superior officers or that of the rank of a Senior Rakshak, therefore, the search made was illegal. In my opinion, the submission is not tenable. Section 13 of the said Act deals with the power of search without a warrant in a case where such a warrant is required to be obtained beforehand but where a person is taking away the property stealthily the search of that person does not require obtaining of a warrant . Accordingly, for that purpose, Section 13 will not apply. To the contrary, the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act shows that any superior officer or member of the force may by order of the Magistrate arrest any person who has been concerned for an offence punishable under the Act. The amplitude of Section 6 is very wide. It entitles a member of the force to arrest a person without a warrant who is concerned for an offence punishable under the Act or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. Accordingly, Section 6 confers the power of arrest on a member of the force and he can at same time make a search of his person and proceedings can be taken in pursuance of the same. This (sic) therefore, also fails. 8. Assuming that I am wrong in coming to the conclusion that the search of the applicant was not made in accordance with law, I do not have any doubt in holding that even if the search was illegal, the conviction of the applicant cannot be vitiated on that basis. The applicant was found is possession of the dynamo belt which has been proved as belonging to the Railway. The applicant was found is possession of the dynamo belt which has been proved as belonging to the Railway. As requirement of Section 3 of the Act had otherwise been established by the prosecution by bringing evidence on the record, his conviction cannot be set aside simply on the ground that the search was made by a person not authorised by law. It is settled that even if the search is not done in accordance with law and any incriminating article is found therein, the same can be used for the purpose of prosecuting a person. 9. In view of what I have said above, the conviction of the applicant appears to be just and correct. But, as the charge against the applicant was only of stealing a dynmo belt, the cost of which cannot be more than Rs. 10/-, it appears appropriate that the sentence awarded by the Magistrate is reduced to the period already undergone. It is true, as urged by the learned State Counsel, that the minimum sentence prescribed by Section 3 of the Act is one year, but the said section also empowers a Court that if special and adequate reasons are shown the Court may reduce it to a period less than one year. In the instant case, as stated above, the value of the dynamo belt being a meagre amount, it is proper that the sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone. 10. With this modification, the revision is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.