JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The accused has preferred this revision against his conviction u/s 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the sentence passed against him thereunder. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 208-1974 at about 4 p.m., P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6, who were on raid duty at the coaching yard of the Khurda Road Railway Station, found the accused moving in a suspicious manner with a bag in his hand. As the accused started running away on seeing the aforesaid witnesses they chased him and caught him with the bag, wherefrom a new dynamo belt belonging to the railway administration was found. The accused could not produce any authority nor could he offer any explanation or reason for the possession of the said dynamo belt. At that time it was found that the dynamo belt of the railway saloon No. 3089, which was standing in the saloon siding, was missing. After further investigation the accused was charged u/s 3(a) of the Act of which he has been convicted. 3. The defence was only a plea of denial. 4. The accused on being convicted by the trial Court preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, Puri, who, on fresh reappraisal of the evidence on record, upheld the conviction and, also the sentence passed against the accused. 5. This Court, while admitting this case on 27-5-1978, found that the sentence passed against the Petitioner for his conviction u/s 3(a) of the Act is less than the minimum prescribed under the said section, and accordingly notice was issued to the Petitioner to show cause as to why the sentence passed against him in this case should not be enhanced. 6. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court, on a consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6 and Ext. 6. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court, on a consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6 and Ext. 2, the report of the T.L.R. who examined the dynamo belt produced by P.W. 6 before him, arrived at the finding that the accused was in possession of the said dynamo belt (M.O. I); it was almost a new one; it bore the railway mark; it was railway property meant to be used in coaches for lighting purposes; such type of belts were not available in the local market; the accused could not account for the possession of that belt; and that the said belt had either been stolen or unlawfully obtained by the accused. 7. I allowed Mr. Rao, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, to place the entire evidence on record before me in view of the fact that notice of enhancement of the sentence passed against the Petitioner had been issued against him. On a very careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 1. 5 and 6, I am satisfied that at the relevant time the accused was found in possession of the dynamo belt (M.O. I) in the coaching yard of the Khurda Road Railway Station; the said dynamo belt was recovered from the bag in the hand of the accused, and the accused could not account for the possession of the said property nor could he show any authority or lawful reason for his possession of the same. On the dynamo belt (M.O. I.) there was a mark in Hindi "Bharatiya Railway Sampaty". It also bore the rail way engine effigy, and it the letters "DEP/WR 4297" were written on it black paint in English. It also showed that it was a product of 1973-74. All these appear from Ext. 2. P.W. 3 has testified to the fact that much an article is not available for sale in the local market. Both the Courts below have arrived at the same findings on careful and proper assessment of the evidence on record. On going through the evidence on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties I am satisfied that the said findings are perfectly correct and justified. On the above facts, conclusion is irresistible that the accused was in unlawful possession of M.O. I, a railway property, which can reasonably be suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained. On the above facts, conclusion is irresistible that the accused was in unlawful possession of M.O. I, a railway property, which can reasonably be suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained. 8. Mr. Rao contends that the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the dynamo belt M.O. I. which was recovered from the possession of the accused, was removed by the accused or any of his associates from the saloon No. 3089, and so the conviction d the accused u/s 3(a) of the Act could riot be sustained. There is no merit in the above contention. Section 3(a) of the Act, under which the Petitioner has been convicted, is as follows: 3. Penalty for unlawful possession of railway property. 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 be 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; The accused in this case was charged for the unlawful possession of the dynamo belt. On the evidence of P.W. 3 and his report Ext. 2, as mentioned above, there is absolutely no doubt that the dynamo belt M.O. I which was recovered from the possession of the accused is a rail way property. The accused has not given any account for the possession of the said property. He has put up a bald plea of denial in this case. Recovery of the said article from the possession of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts and circumstances of this case, as stated above, conclusion is irresistible that the accused was in unlawful possession of the dynamo belt (M.O. I), which had either been stolen or unlawfully obtained. In this case the prosecution has of course proved that at the identical time the dynamo belt of the saloon No. 30-9 was missing. In the facts and circumstances of this case, as stated above, conclusion is irresistible that the accused was in unlawful possession of the dynamo belt (M.O. I), which had either been stolen or unlawfully obtained. In this case the prosecution has of course proved that at the identical time the dynamo belt of the saloon No. 30-9 was missing. That saloon was in the coaching yard of the Khurda Road Railway Station and the accused was apprehended near about that place. The prosecution of course has not established beyond doubt that the dynamo belt, which was recovered from the possession of the accused, had been removed from the said coaching yard. Proof of actual illegal removal of the railway property from a particular place or stock is not an essential ingredient of Section 3 of the Act. It is sufficient if from the facts of the case it can be reasonably suspected that the property obtained from the possession of the accused had been stolen or unlawfully obtained. The charge against the accused was not of theft of the said belt from a particular place or stock, but of unlawful possession of the same. On the facts proved in this case the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt as the necessary ingredients which go to establish an offence u/s 3(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused of the said offence is well founded and I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings and conclusions of the Court below. 9. As stated above, the sentence of imprisonment, if passed for an offence under this section, shall not be less than one year, and if fine is imposed as provided in that section, it shall not be less than one thousand rupees. Neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court has mentioned any 'special and adequate reasons' whatsoever for imposing a punishment less than the aforesaid minimum sentence prescribed u/s 3(a). Hence notice of possible enhancement of the sentence passed against the accused was served on him. Mr. Rao however submits that this is a fit case where the Petitioner should be let out under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. Hence notice of possible enhancement of the sentence passed against the accused was served on him. Mr. Rao however submits that this is a fit case where the Petitioner should be let out under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. Theft of railway property has assumed staggering proportions, and the accused persons found guilty of theft of such property or of offences u/s 3 of the Act should not be dealt with in a lenient manner. Rather, adequate punishment should be imposed on such offenders in order to deter them and other persons of such criminal disposition not to commit such offences in future. Such offences cause serious loss and damage to the general public and dislocation of essential public transport service. On the above consideration and view of the fact that the sentence of imprisonment passed by the Court below does not conform to the provisions of Section 3(a) of the Act, I hereby enhance the sentence of six months R.I., incorrectly passed against the accused-Petitioner by the Courts below, to R.I. for one year, which is the minimum sentence of imprisonment provided under the said section. 10. In the result, the revision is dismissed, the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 3(a) of the Act is upheld and the sentence imposed thereunder by the Court below against him is enhanced as mentioned above. The Petitioner shall surrender to his bail bond immediately to undergo the said sentence of imprisonment imposed against him by this Court. The Court below shall take all necessary steps in the above direction. Final Result : Dismissed