JUDGEMENT The petitioner challenges his conviction under S. 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. On a report submitted on 13-5-75 by R.P.F. Assistant Inspector, Dibrugarh, alleging that 500 grams of brass bearings belonging to the Railway were recovered from the possession of the petitioner; a case was registered under S. 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'; and after investigation the petitioner was charged under that Section and was found guilty by the trial Court, which convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and on appeal the conviction was upheld but the sentence was reduced to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for one month. Hence this revision petition. 2. Mr. D. N. Barua, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits, inter alia, that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is bad in law, inasmuch as the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged brass bearings were Railway property or that those were seized from the possession of the petitioner or even that the alleged article seized was brass bearings and nothing else. He further submits that there was no allegation of theft or loss of brass bearings on the part of the Railway and in the absence of such report the question of theft could not arise at all. Mr. Joginder Singh, the learned Public Prosecutor tries to refute the contentions submitting that there was no doubt that the commodity seized was brass bearings which were available only in the Railway workshop at Dibrugarh; that they were recovered from the person of the petitioner and lawfully seized at the R.P.F. Centre; and that the article was duly certified to have been Railway property which left no doubt that the petitioner committed offence under Section 3(a) of the Act. 3. 3. The prosecution case is that at about 11 A.M. on 13-5-75 at lunch break the R.P.F. Assistant Sub-Inspector, Shri A. K. Sinha, at the gate of the Dibrugarh Railway Workshop saw that the backside waist of the accused-petitioner, a machinist of the wheel shop of the Railway workshop, who was about to pass through the gate, was unusually inflated and on suspicion Shri Sinha took the petitioner to the nearby R.P.F. post where 500 grams of Railway brass bearings were recovered from his waist and accordingly after investigation he submitted an enquiry report under S. 3(1) of the Act against the petitioner to which the latter pleaded not guilty. 4. At the trial the prosecution examined 5 witnesses, but the petitioner did not examine any witness. The trial Court held that the accused-petitioner was found in possession of the brass bearings, M. Ext. 1; that the brass bearings were Railway property within the meaning of S. 2(d) of the Act and these were reasonably suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained by the petitioner; and that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden cast upon him under S. 3 of the Act to show that the brass bearings came to his possession lawfully. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the above findings. 5. The statement that there was no report of theft from the Railway workshop has not been denied. However, that fact by itself would be of no avail if the petitioner was really found in unlawful possession of Railway property. It is, therefore, incumbent to ascertain the nature of the property and that it was a Railway property. Though both the learned courts below held that the seized brass bearings weighing 500 grams were a Railway property, as was mentioned in the charge-sheet, Mr. Barua draws my attention to the evidence of Shri A. K. Sinha, A.S.I., R.P.F., who stated that the packet produced by the petitioner to him from his waist contained brass bearings mixed with iron dust and the same was seized. There is no mention of any proportion or percentage of iron dust that was mixed with the brass bearings. Admittedly there was no Railway marking on the iron dust or the brass bearings. P.W. 4, Rabindra Kumar, issued the certificate, Ext. 4, certifying the brass bearings to be Railway property. Ext. There is no mention of any proportion or percentage of iron dust that was mixed with the brass bearings. Admittedly there was no Railway marking on the iron dust or the brass bearings. P.W. 4, Rabindra Kumar, issued the certificate, Ext. 4, certifying the brass bearings to be Railway property. Ext. 4 is to the effect that "the brass bearings mixed with iron bearings weighing 500 gms are Rly. property as such type of material (Bearings) are available in the Rly. Workshop/DBRT". It was issued on 13-5-75 at 12.30 hours when he attended the R.P.F. post PBWS and examined the packet produced by the S.I., R.P.F. Before the Court P.W. 4, Rabindra Kumar, stated that he issued the certificate, Ext. 4, and further stated that he was called to the R.P.F. post at about 12 Noon and he examined the bearings there. He could not say what was the proportion of iron bearings to brass bearings or what kind of iron bearings were mixed. In cross-examination he admitted that he was only Assistant Shop Superintendent of the Machine shop and that there were Chargemen and Superintendents in the Department and that he was not an expert in respect of Railway materials and the Railway Administration did not confer on him any authority to issue certificate relating to Railway property. He admitted that he did not chemically analyse the bearings and there were no specific markings on them. He clearly stated that he certified those to be Railway property because similar bearings were available in the Railway workshop. 6. On the basis of the above evidence is it reasonable to hold that the brass bearings were Railway property? The enquiry report and the prosecution report mention of unlawful possession of Railway property. The petitioner was charged with unlawful possession of brass bearings which were Railway property. The certificate, Ext. 4, mentions about brass bearings mixed with iron bearings weighing 500 grams. The only basis for issuing the certificate was that such type of materials (bearings) were available only in the Railway Workshop/DBRT. The certificate does not bear any stamp of Railways. P.W. 4 admitted that he had no authority to issue any certificate on Railway property. There was no chemical examination. There was no comparison with the bearings and iron dust actually found in the Railway workshop. The certificate does not bear any stamp of Railways. P.W. 4 admitted that he had no authority to issue any certificate on Railway property. There was no chemical examination. There was no comparison with the bearings and iron dust actually found in the Railway workshop. Under the above circumstances, to my mind, it would not be reasonable to hold that the mixed bearings must be Railway property. 7. It is in evidence that there was provision for chemical examination of railway property in the workshop. There were also officers authorised to analyse and certify such properties, but they were not availed of. One of the fundamental principles of evidence is that the best evidence should be given of which the nature of the case permits. Best evidence is understood in three different senses, namely, that the nature of the fact admitted, or that the circumstances would allow, or that the party could produce. Though it is not the law that best evidence must always be given and otherwise the case will fail, its non-production may affect the weight of that which is produced, a man must have the utmost evidence that the nature of the fact is capable of, and no evidence shall be brought which ex natura rei supposes still a greater evidence behind in the party's own possession or power. In this case the prosecution could surely have got the bearings analysed by chemical analyst in the workshop and certified by officers authorised to certify as expert, but that was not done. There is, however, no doubt that all relevant evidence will be admissible and conviction can be based even on circumstantial evidence. Indeed, the same general principle prevails with regard to the proof of crimes of every description, and of every element of the corpus delicti. 8. Under sub-sec, (a) of S. 3 of the Act whoever is found, or is proved to have been in possession of every railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained shall, unless he proves that the railway property came to his possession lawfully, be punishable. As defined in S. 2(d) of the Act "Railway Property" includes any goods, money or valuable security or animal, belonging to, or in the charge or possession of, a railway administration. As defined in S. 2(d) of the Act "Railway Property" includes any goods, money or valuable security or animal, belonging to, or in the charge or possession of, a railway administration. In the instant case the bearings have to be shown to be goods "belonging to, or in charge or possession of, a railway administration". However, what has been sought to be proved is that similar bearings are available in the railway workshop. No workshop Manual or register has been proved to show that the bearings were in charge or possession of the railway administration. Prosecution sought to rely on the presumption that since the bearings were recovered from the backside waist of the petitioner at lunch recess while he was coming out by the workshop gate, he must reasonably be suspected to have stolen or unlawfully obtained the bearings, unless the petitioner proved that the bearings came to his possession lawfully. But before drawing such presumption the bearings must be shown to have been in possession or charge of the railway administration. No such proof has been adduced in this case. Thus, in Ram Narain Tewari v. State of U.P. 1978 Cri LJ NOC 218 (All) the accused was caught while coming out of the railway workshop along with some workshop material. While acquitting him Allahabad High Court held that there must be some direct evidence to prove that the material is railway property; and there must be some record consisting of either stock register or any document showing that the article was in charge of the railway administration or under its ownership. Similarly in Nishit Ranjan Bhadra v. State of Assam, 1982 Cri LJ 2253 (Gauhati) where the petitioner, a boiler Khalashi, was found carrying 7½ Kg of "Assam raw coal" in two bags at 4.30 P.M. at a place 50 yards from the wall of the Loco Shed, but the coal was not examined by an expert and nobody testified that the same or similar coal was being used for railway engines, Lahiri, J. acquitted the petitioner observing that there was no material to hold that the property was owned by or belonged to the railway nor was there any material to hold that the property was entrusted to the Railway for carriage or as carrier. It is true that the present definition of "railway property" is different from the earlier definition of "railway stores" in the 1955 Act which meant "any article (a) which is the property of any railway administration; and (b) which is used or intended to be used in the construction, operation or maintenance of the railway". Kashmiri Lal v. State of U.P., (1969) 2 SCC 786 : 1970 Cri LJ 1647 : ( AIR 1970 SC 1868 ) was an authority on the earlier definition. The present definition is wider. It is not now necessary to prove that the property was used or intended to be used for construction, operation or maintenance of the railway. Serviceability of the property is also not now an ingredient of the offence. Section 3(9) of Indian Railways Act defines 'goods' to include inanimate things of every kind. In Binod Kumar Jhunjhunwala v. State, 1979 Cri LJ 287 (Cal) when the alleged railway goods recovered were in broken and damaged and unserviceable condition and their identification was not possible, the charge under S. 3(a) of the Act was held to have been illegally framed. As was ruled in the State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath, AIR 1979 SC 1825 : 1979 Cri LJ 1193, the essential requirements of S. 3 are that (i) the property in question should be railway property, (ii) it should reasonably be suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained, and (iii) it should be found or proved that the accused was or had been in possession of that property. When prosecution failed to prove that the property in question was railway property the question of proving the other requirements does not arise. Identification of the property in question is, therefore, an essential requirement in such cases. In State v. Ramaswamy, 1983 Cri LJ NOC 178 (Mad) where a dynamo belt bearing manufacturing concern's name and railway engine emblem was recovered from the accused and there was no evidence that the Railways was in possession of the recovered belt, it was held that it could not be said to be railway property merely because of the emblem. 9. In the instant case on the basis of the evidence on record it cannot be held that the prosecution has been able to identify the bearings to be railway property belonging to, or in charge or possession of a railway administration. 10. 9. In the instant case on the basis of the evidence on record it cannot be held that the prosecution has been able to identify the bearings to be railway property belonging to, or in charge or possession of a railway administration. 10. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. The petition is allowed and the Rule made absolute. Petition allowed.