Short Note : 1. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment or acquittal of the respondent passed by the Magistrate First Class, Khachrodh in Criminal case No.3 to of 1974, for an offence under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal as per prosecution case are that Tirathraj Tewari P.W.1, Sub-Inspector Police received confidential information that the respondent was in unlawful possession of a dynamo-belt bearing railway marks, at his flour-mill, situated at Birlagram Nagada. On the basis of a search warrant obtained by him, a search was conducted at the flour-mill, where a dynamo-belt bearing railway mark was seized, in the presence of the Panchas. On these facts the respondent was prosecuted. The defence of the respondent was of denial. Held: In the present case the prosecution evidence only indicates that a dynamo-belt was seized from the possession of the accused. That apart there is no other convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove that in fact the belt seized was the railway property. The basis on which the prosecution claims the same to be the railway property is an embossed marking I.R. i.e. Indian Railways on the belt P.W.9 Ashok Kumar Saxena who is an electric chargeman has stated that the said belt belongs to the railway as the words I.R. are engraved on it. That apart there is no other evidence, giving legal support to hold that if these words I.R. appear on any property they have to be taken to be belongings to the railways alone. In this case the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the seized belt was the railway property, that it was stolen, or that it was stored or being put to any use before it was actually seized from the possession of the respondent. Admittedly the Panch witnesses Abdul Majid and Laxminarain have not supported the prosecution case, It was for the prosecution to prove that the respondent had obtained the belt by theft or unlawful means. This essential part of the ingredients of the offence is totally missing, in as much as no attempt has been made to give evidence on the point. Merely because the belt seized bore the embossed words I.R. engraved thereon will not necessarily lead to conclude that it is the railway property. This essential part of the ingredients of the offence is totally missing, in as much as no attempt has been made to give evidence on the point. Merely because the belt seized bore the embossed words I.R. engraved thereon will not necessarily lead to conclude that it is the railway property. The learned trial Court has property considered the prosecution evidence, on the basis of which it came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent, and I see no reason to differ from the view taken and the conclusion reached by it. The decision of the case entirely rests on consideration and appreciation of evidence and no question of law, as such involved I do not find any perversity or legal infirmity in the impugned order of acquittal. Appeal dismissed.