Judgment : The revision petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 1,000 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1 Salem. In appeal the conviction and the sentence were confirmed. 2. On 14th November, 1978, at about 12-30 a.m., Sekar, the revision petitioner was found moving in suspicious circumstances on the railway platform at Salem Junction. P.W. 1, P.C. Dharu, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force was on duty sat the platform. He stopped the accused on suspicion and wanted to know as to what the gunny bag which the revision petitioner was carrying on his shoulder, contained. As no satisfactory reply was given, P.W. 1 seized the gunny bag from him, which contained railway marks. The leather bag which the revision petitioner was carrying was also searched and it was found to contain six cardboard boxes containing filter elements. There was also a chalan, Exhibit P-1, in it. The revision petitioner was not able to account for possession of these articles which are railway properties. P.W. 1 then recovered M.O. 1 gunny bag, and M.O. 2, the filter elements, under a mahazar, Exhibit P-2 attested by witnesses. A case was registered in Crime No. 30 of 1978 under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. A statement was also recorded. P.W. 1 examined witnesses and laid the charge sheet. 3. The trial Magistrate on an analysis of the evidence adduced before him found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. As already pointed out in appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed. The revision petitioner challenges that order. 4. The fact that M.Os. 1 and 2 were railway properties admits of no doubt. The evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 7 will prove that M.O. 1 was booked at Karur and was unloaded at Erode for onward transmission. So also the evidence of P.Ws. 8, 9 and 10 shows that M.O. 2 was booked at Hyderabad and unloaded at Erode. 1 and 2 were railway properties admits of no doubt. The evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 7 will prove that M.O. 1 was booked at Karur and was unloaded at Erode for onward transmission. So also the evidence of P.Ws. 8, 9 and 10 shows that M.O. 2 was booked at Hyderabad and unloaded at Erode. The revision petitioner stayed at Erode in a lodge and Exhibit P-5, the receipt, proves that Exhibit P-4, the ticket seized from the revision petitioner under a mahazar by P.W. 1 shows that bet has travelled by an express train from Erode to Salem on 14th November, 1978. The evidence of P.W. 2 shows that M.Os. 1 and 2 were recovered from the revision petitioner by P.W. 1 on 14th November, 1978 at 12-30 a.m. There is therefore overwhelming evidence that Mos. 1 and 2 which are, railway properties were found in the possession of the revision petitioner on the night of 14th November, 1978. That apart, the revision petitioner has confessed having committed theft of these articles, M.Os. 1 and 2, in his statement, Exhibit P-3 which is clearly admissible in evidence. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the railway properties, M.Os. 1 and 2, were found in the possession of the revision petitioner and that the revision petitioner was not able to account for his possession. Sitting in revision, I do not see any reason to interfere with this finding of fact. The conviction therefore under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act is correct and is confirmed. 5. Mr. V. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner urged that the revision petitioner is a graduate of Bangalore University and his relatives are well placed in life and that the Courts below ought to have invoked the beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as he is a first offender with no record of previous conviction and as he was only aged 22 at the time of occurrence. A reference to section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act shows that 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 punished 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. A minimum punishment of either imprisonment or fine has to be imposed if one is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 3(a) of the Act. If under section 3 (a) the Court inflicts a punishment below the prescribed minimum, it has to give special and adequated reasons in the judgment. The question is whether under such circumstances, the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 could be invoked. In Superintendent, Central Excise, Bangalore v. Bahubali1, the Supreme Court had to consider the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in the case of inconsistencies with the later Acts. That was a case where gold ingots bearing foreign markings were recovered from the respondent therein, but the Magistrate in the trial before him acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 135 of the Customs Act, but convicted him of the offence under rule 126-1 and (10) read with rule 126-P (2) (ii) of the Defence of India Rules, 1963, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs. 2,000. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted him under rule 126-P (2) (i) of the Defence of India Rules and sentenced him to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and maintained the sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000. The, Department filed an appeal and a revision was also filed by the accused. The High Court allowed the appeal and held that the case falls under rule 126-P (2) (ii) which prescribed a minimum sentence of imprisonment for six months and directed that the respondent be released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The High Court allowed the appeal and held that the case falls under rule 126-P (2) (ii) which prescribed a minimum sentence of imprisonment for six months and directed that the respondent be released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that where there is a statute which bars the exercise of judicial discretion in the matter of award of sentence, the Probation of Offenders Act, will have no application or relevance. The Supreme Court pointed out that sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act are inconsistent with rule 126-P (2) (ii) of the Defence of. India Rules, 1963, which manifestly bars the exercise of judicial discretion in awarding punishment or in releasing an offender on probation in lieu of sentencing him by laying down a minimum sentence of imprisonment and that rule has to prevail over the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in view of section 43 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, which is later in point of time, than the Probation of Offenders Act. As I earlier pointed out, in this case, section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act provides for a minimum sentence of either imprisonment or fine. Section 14 of the said Act enacts a non obstante clause which runs thus: “The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.” In other words, it has the effect of overriding the provisions of other enactments which contained inconsistent provisions and that would include the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act also. Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act prescribing a minimum punishment is manifestly inconsistent with the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, the application of the Probation of Offenders Act is excluded. 6. But, Mr. Srinivasan, pointed out that an educated youth who is a first offender ought not to be sent to jail and allowed to mix with seasoned criminals, and that therefore, the Court can take a lenient view of the matter and impose a sentence of fine only. Having regard to the fact that the revision petitioner is a first offender, who is almost a youth, and comes of a respectable family. Having regard to the fact that the revision petitioner is a first offender, who is almost a youth, and comes of a respectable family. I feel that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment and imposing a fine instead. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment for one year is set aside and instead, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in addition to the fine already paid, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Time for payment of fine-one month from this date. Except for this modification in the sentence, the revision, in other respects, fails and is dismissed.