JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore upholding the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 3(e) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' but reducing the sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year. 2. The prosecution case in brief may be stated. A consignment of XXX Rum manufactured by Amrut Distillery and meant for defence services personnel in 700 packages was being transported in a goods train from Bangalore to Guwahati. On 30.10.1973 before dawn the goods train made a brief halt at Kenduapada Railway Station. At about 6 a.m. the Assistant Station Master (P.W. 5) received a message from Bhadrak Railway Station to the effect that the seal of the wagon containing the consignment of XXX Rum was found broken and theft of goods was suspected, P.W. 5. passed on the information to two R.P.F. Rakhyaks Guru Charan Naik (P.W. 1) and Surendranath Pradhan (P.W. 4) who made a search of the locality and found that in a hut near the Railway yard some persons including the Petitioners I were present. Then they approached the hut, all except the Petitioners and Chadhei Pradhan (accused) ran away. P.Ws. 1 and 4 recovered 9 packages of XXX Rum from inside the hut where the Petitioners were present and on enquiry both of them confessed that they had broken open the wagon and had stolen the packages. Therefore, along with the goods recovered by them they brought the Petitioners and Chadhei Pradhan and produced them before P.W. 8. Officer-in-Charge of Railway Protection Force of Bhadrak. P.W. 5 submitted a written report contained in Ext. 2. Both 5 the Appellants confessed their involvement in the theft of the packages which was reduced into writing by P.W. 8 and was admitted into evidence as Exts. 3 and 4. The case was investigated and prosecution report was submitted. 3. The, Petitioners who were gang coolies denied the charges against them and stated that the packages of XXX Rum were not recovered from their possession. They also denied that they made the confessions though did not dispute the fact that they signed Exts. 3 and 4. 4. 3 and 4. The case was investigated and prosecution report was submitted. 3. The, Petitioners who were gang coolies denied the charges against them and stated that the packages of XXX Rum were not recovered from their possession. They also denied that they made the confessions though did not dispute the fact that they signed Exts. 3 and 4. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate found that the nine packages of XXX Rum were, Railway property as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act, they were recovered from the possession of the Petitioners and that they had made confession before the R.P.F. staff. Accordingly he convicted the Petitioners and accused Chadhei Pradhan and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. The Petitioners along With the other accused appealed before the learned Sessions Judge who confirmed all the findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate against the Petitioners, but entertained doubt with regard to the complicity of Chadhei Pradhan and while upholding the conviction of the former, acquitted the other accused. 5. Mr. K.N. Jena learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, referring to Article 20(3) of the Constitution, placed reliance on Balkishan A. Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra and urged that the conviction of the Petitioners cannot be sustained in view of the constitutional ban against "compelled testimony". This contention based on some facts and law requires, careful examination. 6. In the Case of Balkrishna v. Devidayal (supra) an important principle was enunciated which is, the officers of the Railway Protection Force ate not police officers and a confession before them is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. This principle was not disputed. The conclusion of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court with regard to confession before an officer of the Railway Protection Force which termed as "compelled testimony" will appear from the following findings: ...In the, instant case, at the time when the alleged incriminating statement was made before the Officer of the R.P.F. no formal complaint in regard to, the commission of an offence had been filed against him in Courts nor had any F.I.R. been lodged with the Police specifically accusing the Appellant or the author, of that statement of the commission of the offence. It is, therefore, manifest that at the material time the author of the self incriminatory statements in question, did not fulfil the character of a "person accused of an office" within the meaning of Article 20(3). To sum up only a person against whom a formal accusation of the commission of an offence has been made can be a person "accused of offence" within the meaning of Article 20(3). Such formal accusation may be specifically made against him in a F.I.R. or a formal complaint or any other formal document or notice served on that person, which ordinarily results in his prosecution in Court. In the instant case no such formal accusation had been made against the Appellant when his statement(s) in question were recorded by the R.P.F. Officer. In accordance with the guidelines set down above, it is necessary to find if the Petitioners were "accused of an offence" and a formed accusation had been brought against them when they made the confessional statements. Ext. 2 is the report of P.W. 5 dated 30.10.1973 to the Officer-In-Charge of the Railway Protection Force, Bhadrak. It was not treated as F.I.R. The Petitioners were forwarded to the Court on 31.10.1973 for the first time when they were remanded to pot ice custody, To add to this the formal P.R. Das submitted on 4.5.1974. These facts will unmistakably show that when the Petitioners made the confessional statements before P.Ws. 1, 4 and 8, a formal accusation of commission of the offence had not been made against them and they did not stand accused of any offence within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. For the aforesaid reasons, it is not possible to hold that the confessional statements of the Petitioners violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 7. The next contention of Mr. Jena is that the confessional statements were neither voluntary nor reliable and so should not have been accepted. The Petitioner confessed at two stages, first before P.Ws. 1 and 4 when the packages were recovered at Kenduapada and on the second occasion, sometime thereafter before P.W. 8 at Bhadrak, Therefore, confession before P.Ws. 1 and 4 was oral, whereas, their confession before P.W. 8 was in writing. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel that the Petitioners made their confession in Oriya and the same was reduced into writing by P.W. 8 into English. 1 and 4 was oral, whereas, their confession before P.W. 8 was in writing. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel that the Petitioners made their confession in Oriya and the same was reduced into writing by P.W. 8 into English. Even if this was so, there is no material on record to show that the confession were not voluntary and that P.W. 8 recorded something which was not stated to him by the Petitioners. There three witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 4 and 8) were not in inimical terms with the Petitioners and there was no reason why they should, have deposed against them relating to the confession, Considering these facts, the learned Courts of fact accepted the confessional statements of the Petitioners and I find no reason to differ with them. 8. Mr. Jena also contended that there was no link between the consignment and the goods recovered. The learned Additional Standing Counsel pointed out some evidence as the connecting link. Apart from this, if the confessional statements are accepted as voluntary and true, the link between the stolen packages and the remaining goods is naturally established. 9. The last contention of Mr. Jena is that the charge is defective. As a matter of fact, there is an error in the charge about the time of commission of the offence, but the Petitioners who were defended both in the trial Court, as well as in the Court of appeal were not prejudiced by the mistake. They know the prosecution case well and defended themselves against the charge by engaging counsel, Therefore, the charge cannot be said to be defective on this score so as to prejudice the Petitioners. 10. From the aforesaid discussion it will appear that none of the contentions ably raised by Mr. Jena can be sustained and hardly find my reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. The sentence is not excessive. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed