Judgment This appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T., Madras in C.C. No. 585 of 1977 acquitting the respondent-accused for an offence under section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows: P.W. 2 is the Sub-Inspector of R.P.F., Royapuram. On 14th December, 1976 at 4.50 a.m., when he was on a confidential watch in between Washermanpet Railway station and M.C.C. level crossing gate, he saw the accused carrying a cloth bundle concealed in his left arm-pit and going from east to west. P.W. 2 stopped him on suspicion near the bridge and questioned him about the bundle. The accused was not able to give an explanation of his possession of the bundle. Hence, P.W. 2 checked it in the presence of witnesses and found it contained one railway dynamo belt with marks “Oriental Bombay 78-1975”. M.O. 1 marked in this case is the belt. It was seized tinder cover of a mahazar, Exhibit P-2. As no independent witnesses were available, P. W. 2 could not get Exhibit P-2 attested by anybody. He took the accused to R.P.F. post along with M.O. 1 and registered a case in Crime No. 65 of 1976, under section 3 (a) Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. A statement was recorded from the accused which is marked as Exhibit P-3. The case property was subsequently produced in Court. 3. P.W. 1 is the Electrical chargeman, Royapuram, who deposed that on 20th December, 1976, at R.P.F. post, Royapuram, he examined M.O. 1, dynamo belt and found the railway marks “Oriental 1975 Bombay” in it. There was a railway emblem on it also. According to him the belts like M.O. 1 are used in the dynamo for train lighting purposes. M.O. 1 is in serviceable condition and is not available in open market. It belongs to Indian Railways and he has issued the certificate, Exhibit P-1 in this case. 4. On the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused, when questioned the accused denied the offence and examined two witnesses on his behalf. 5. D.W. 1 is a relation of the accused. On 14th December, 1976, at 7.00 a.m., he was informed that R.P.F. officials had taken the accused as he had crossed the railway line. 4. On the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused, when questioned the accused denied the offence and examined two witnesses on his behalf. 5. D.W. 1 is a relation of the accused. On 14th December, 1976, at 7.00 a.m., he was informed that R.P.F. officials had taken the accused as he had crossed the railway line. He went to R.P.F. post at Royapuram and enquired about it. He learnt that the accused had crossed the railway line while on his way to the hospital. He got a chit of the hospital which the accused was having in his possession at the time. Next day, the R.P.F. officials filed a different case against the accused and produced him into Court. He got the accused released on bail. 6. The accused examined himself as D.W. 2. According to him, ho was born in Burma. On 14th December, 1976 he went to Stanley Hospital for treatment of Asthma. He filed Exhibit D-1 series as O.P. tickets. When he was going to the Stanley Hospital he saw the level crossing gate closed. So, he entered inside the gate and crossed the line. The police officials caught him and filed this case against him. He deposed that he only crossed the line and he was not in possession of any dynamo belt. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has contended that on the evidence of P.W. 2, S.I., alone, the conviction could be based. According to him the reasons given by the lower Court in not accepting the evidence of P.W. 2 are not correct. He submitted that Exhibit P-3 even without the attestation of any independent witness can be acted upon in view of the evidence of P.W. 2. There is no need for oath being administered to the accused before Exhibit P-2 was recorded. He submitted as no independent witnesses were available the mahazar Exhibit P-2 was not attested and the absence of mahazar witness is not a circumstance to throw doubt on the veracity of P. W. 2’s evidence. He further submitted that P.W. 1 has proved that M.O. 1 seized from the accused belongs to the railway administration. He submitted as no independent witnesses were available the mahazar Exhibit P-2 was not attested and the absence of mahazar witness is not a circumstance to throw doubt on the veracity of P. W. 2’s evidence. He further submitted that P.W. 1 has proved that M.O. 1 seized from the accused belongs to the railway administration. In support of his contentions, he relied on a decision in Madan Singh v. State of Rajasthan1, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held if the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witness did not support the prosecution version. In this instant case, there is no mahazar witness as nobody was available at the time when M.O. 1 was seized. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the evidence let in by the prosecution does not conclusively prove that M.O. 1 belongs to the Railway administration. He submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1 is not sufficient to hold that M.O. 1 belongs to railway administration. According to Mm, P.W. 1’s evidence “oriental Bombay” indicating the manufacturing concern’s name in M.O. 1 and also the railway engine emblem found on M.O. 1 is not sufficient to hold that M.O. 1 belongs to the railways. He argued that the secondary evidence like P.W. 1’s should not be acted upon to hold that M.O. 1 belongs to the Railway administration. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision in Amarendra Kumar Padav v. State of Bihar1, wherein the learned Judge held: — “Besides the above infirmity in the prosecution evidence, there is another reason why on such an evidence no conclusion can be drawn that the rexine was an article of the railway stores. In this connection sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act operate to the detriment of the prosecution. ‘Document’ has been defined is section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act which says that it” means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means intended to be used or which may be used for the purpose of recording that matter“. The illustration appended to the section says that” an inscription on a metal plate or store is a document. The illustration appended to the section says that” an inscription on a metal plate or store is a document. “In the case of Emperor v. Krishtappa Khandappa2, letters imprinted on trees for distinction and identification were held to be ‘document’ under section 29 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the inscription” I.R. “on the seized rexine clearly is a document. Now under section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, document must be proved by primary evidence” except in the case hereinafter mentioned. “Section 65 enumerates the cases in which secondary evidence relating to document may be given. The kind of evidence that has been given is manifestly a secondary evidence. But, no circumstance exists in the present case to warrant reception of secondary evidence. That being so, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the point whether rexine seized was an article of the railway stores is hit by section 64 read with section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be relied upon to come to a conclusion that the rexine in question was an article of the railway stores.” He also relied on a decision in State by the Public Prosecutor v. C.P. Jeevarathinam3, wherein the learned Judge held that for an offence under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 the prosecution has got to prove: (1) that the accused has been in possession of the railway property; (2) that the property seized from the accused is the railway property; and (3) that the said railway property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. 9. Section 2 (d) of the Act defines the railway property “as any goods, money or valuable security or animal, belonging to, or in the charge or possession of, a railway administration”. Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 states: “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 he proves that the railway property came into his possession lawfully be punishable. Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 states: “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 he 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 prosecution should first succeed in proving that the accused has been in possession of the railway property. The evidence of P.W. 1 examined to prove this aspect of the case is not very satisfactory. The mark found on M.O. 1 “Oriental Bombay” indicates the manufacturing concern’s name. It does not show that it belongs and belongs only to the railway administration. Merely because a railway engine emblem is also found on M.O. 1, it does not make it a railway property, as anybody, could have an emblem likewise. Further, P.W. 1 had no knowledge that the Indian Railways were in possession of this particular Dynamo Belt. There is no evidence to show that the railways did purchase this article from the manufacturing (company. M.O. 1 produced in Court looks like a worn out material with tearing on it. P.W. 1 doubted whether it could be used for servicing at all. Merely by looking at M.O. 1 in such a condition, it is difficult to accept the evidence of P.W. 1 when he states that it belongs to the railways. Thus, the evidence on the side of the prosecution failed to prove that the article belonged to the railway administration beyond all reasonable doubt. There is in the instant case no sufficient evidence of identification mark on the goods or some peculiarity which cannot be found on any non-railway goods, nor is there any evidence to show that it was in possession of the railway administration. 10. The lower Court seemed to be under a notion that conviction cannot be based on the sole evidence of P.W. 2, S.I. of R.P.F., and he laid stress on the fact that Exhibits P-2 and P-3 are not attested by any independent witnesses. 10. The lower Court seemed to be under a notion that conviction cannot be based on the sole evidence of P.W. 2, S.I. of R.P.F., and he laid stress on the fact that Exhibits P-2 and P-3 are not attested by any independent witnesses. The lower Court erred in its view that an oath should have been administered to the accused before a statement was recorded from him by P.W. 2 and a caution should have been given before it was taken. A Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated, unless it is insisted upon by statute, like that of a witness who is in a position analogous to that of an accomplice. The lower Court suffered from a delusion that the S.I. of R.P.F.‘s evidence has to be considered suspect and his evidence should not be acted upon. The evidence of a person like P.W. 2 does not in any manner differ from other witnesses and it has to stand or fall on its own strength or weakness after it is tested on the anvil by cross-examination. 11. As I am not satisfied that the evidence let in on the side of the prosecution has proved that M.O. 1 belongs to the railway administration, I hold it has not brought home the guilt to the accused as charged. 12. It is not necessary to deal with the defence witnesses. If the case of the prosecution is not proved the accused is entitled to an acquittal, whether his defence be true or false. In the result, the appeal against acquittal by the State is dismissed.