Judgment Uday Sinha, J. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of the learned magistrate dated 28.8.1980 where by he held that there was adequate material to frame charge against the petitioner. 2. It appears that on 22.1.1974 a truck laden with some copper wires and articles made of copper was apprehended. The copper articles were taken by the police to be railway property. The petitioner was, therefore, charged by the Railway Protection Force of being in possession of railway property. A complaint was therefore, filed in terms of the Railway Property (unlawful possession) Act, in Court. The prosecution examined two witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2, to prove that the properties seized from the truck were railway properties. After examining two witnesses, the learned magistrate held that the charge should be framed against the petitioner as there was adequate material to charge him for contravention of Railway Property, Unlawful possession) Act. That order was passed on 3.3.1979. Against that order the petitioner moved the Sessions Judge, Gaya, to revision. The revision was heard by 2nd Additional Sessions, judge. The learned judge by order dated 10.9.1979 quashed the order of the learned magistrate holding that the evidence or P.Ws. 1 and 2 was not enough to show that the properties In question wore railway properties. With those observations, the matter was remanded to the learned magistrate, Subsequently, the prosecution examined four more witnesses. After examination of four additional witnesses the learned magistrate passed the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned magistrate, the petitioner has moved this court for quashing the order of the learned magistrate dated 28.8.1980. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no material before the learned Magistrate to frame charge under the Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act. In reply to the submission on behalf of the petitioner counsel for the State submitted that the records show that there was some material to frame charge against the petitioner. I have, therefore, gone through the evidence of the witnesses. In a case of this nature, it is essential for the prosecution to show that the articles which were in possession of the accused were railway property. In the absence of any evidence in that behalf, it will be difficult to charge anyone with being in unlawful possession of railway property. P.Ws. In a case of this nature, it is essential for the prosecution to show that the articles which were in possession of the accused were railway property. In the absence of any evidence in that behalf, it will be difficult to charge anyone with being in unlawful possession of railway property. P.Ws. 3 to 6 did not state a word about the properties in question being railway properties. Learned counsel the State conceded that the evidence of P.W. 3 to 6 was not helpful for showing that the properties recovered from the truck were railway properties. So far as the evidence of P.W. 1 & 2 goes to the learned Additional Sessions Judge on an earlier occasion had held that their evidence did not show that the properties were railway properties. I am in agreement with the views of the Additional Sessions Judge. The articles were seized from a truck in the town of Gaya. The Impugned article according to the prosecution, were copper wire and copper articles P.W. 1 only stated that such wire us used by the Railways P.W. 2, however stated that unless there was any marking on the article. In question it would be difficult to state whether It was railway property or not. No evidence was led before the learned magistrate to show that such wire is used only by the railway and nobody else. Even If such evidence had been led, the prosecution will be still in difficulty, because P.W. 2 deposed that the railway sell by auction the goods which are of no use to them. Therefore, the petitioner may well be in possession of the railway property lawfully. It is not every possession of railway property which is unlawful. P.W. 2 deposed that what are not useful for the railway, they are auctioned. In the absence of any marking In the Impugned properties. It is difficult to hold that the properties were railway properties. I am, therefore, or the view that there was no material before the learned magistrate to frame charge against the petitioner for being unlawful possession of railway property. 4. For the reasons, stated above, the application is allowed and the order dated 26.8.1980 is hereby quashed. Application allowed.