Short Note : 1. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of the respondents passed by the Magistrate First Class, Khachrod in criminal case No.3 of 1971, for an offence under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, as per prosecution case, are that on 13th October 1970, Sub-Inspector Railway Protection Force Gulabsingh PW 1, received information that a dynamo-belt, which is the railway property is in possession of the respondents, and is being used by them in their flourmill situated at Nai Dilli Nagda. On the basis of this information he sent a written report to ASI, RPF. Nagda who in turn proceeded to raid the said installation of the accused persons. In the presence of respondent No.1 Akbar Khan and the 2 Panch witnesses Rajbeharisingh PW 2, the ASI, seized a dynamo-belt containing mark IR embossed on it, which was in actual use at that time in the flour-mill. This belt was certified to be a railway property and on these allegations the respondents were prosecuted. The defence of respondent No.1 Akbar Khan at the trial was that he is only a servant of respondent No.2 Gulmohammad, while the defence of respondent No.2 Gulmohammad was of denial and false implication. Held: According to this section in order to convict a person for this offence it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the articles seized from the possession of the accused should be railway property, and that there should be reasonable suspicion of the same having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. Unless and until these ingredients are proved satisfactorily, the accused cannot be held guilty of that offence. 3. In the present case the only evidence adduced by the prosecution is that the seized belt has the embossed marking of I.R. which according to the prosecution means Indian Railways, But apart from the oral testimony there is no documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to indicate that this embossed marking I.R. on the belt denotes that it is the railway property. The Panch witnesses Shyamsundar Ram PW 3 and Maliksingh PW 4 as also Motilal PW 5 have only deposed that the belt was seized with marking I.R. However, these witnesses do not fully support the prosecution case. The Panch witnesses Shyamsundar Ram PW 3 and Maliksingh PW 4 as also Motilal PW 5 have only deposed that the belt was seized with marking I.R. However, these witnesses do not fully support the prosecution case. The other two witnesses Gulabsingh PW 1 and Shyambehari Singh PW 2 are on the point of seizure of the belt. That apart there is no other convincing evidence to show that this belt which was seized from the possession of the respondents was firstly the railway property, and that the respondents were suspected of being in possession thereof in an unlawful manner or is a stolen property. The prosecution has not led any evidence to show that the belt seized belong to the railways, that it was stolen from a particular place at a particular time from the possession of the Railway authorities, that there was shortage of the belt due to its theft or that prior to the theft it was being used at a particular place where from it was found missing, but in absence of any such evidence it cannot be said that the offence-against the respondents bas been established beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court while considering and discussing the prosecution evidence has given valid reasons for the acquittal of the respondents, and I see no reason to differ from the view taken and the conclusion reached by him which is based on proper consideration and appreciation of evidence. Normally in a case of acquittal there should be no interference unless the lower court has committed any glaring illegality or has failed to consider any material evidence, or has not appreciated the evidence in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed.