1. In this revision petition the petitioner his challenged the order dated 2.7.85 passed by the Sessions Judge, Diorugarh in Criminal Appeal No. 13(1) of 1984 affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia in IC/78 convicting the petitioner U/S 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession), Act, 1966 and senten­cing him to rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year. 2. The prosecution case was preceded by a complaint dated 7.1.78 that at about 10.15 P M. the petitioner Mihir Kanti Bose who was employee of the Railway as a Fireman 'C' attached to the Loco Shed Foreman Tinsukia removing one Drum containing 205 litres of axal oil by rolling on the ground with the help of a outsider, and Harihar Jha (Rakshak) came running to the spot and caught the accused petitioner redbanded. The said complaint was lodged by Shri Sinsanka Bhusan Dasgupta Asstt. Loco Foreman, Tinsukia Locoshed. On the basis of the said information, a case was registered against the petitioner being Case No. IC/78. 3. In course of investigation, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. After concluding the trial the learned courts below found tha petitioner guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment aforesaid. Hence this revision petition. 4. I have heard Mr. J. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well Mr. Gopal, learned P. P. 5. In this case the consistant evidence of P.W-1 and 4 is that the petitioner along with one outsider were pusing/rolling a Drum which was kept near Locoshed. P. W-1 also stated in his cross-examination that the petitioner Mihir Kanti Bose was an employee of Tinsukia locoshed. P.W-4 also stated that the petitioner was a Railway staff. P.W-5 Shri Indra Kt. Das gupta stated that on 7.1.78 he was on duty from 7 P. M. to 6 A. M. On hearing halla he saw one R.P.F. personnel was standing along with the petitioner near the Loco Foreman' Office. On going nearer he saw a petrol drum near the Railway compound. The drum was inside Railway Compound and accor­ding to him it was Railway property, (emphasis supplied) 6. It is the consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses that the petitioner was pushing/rolling the Drum near Locoshed inside the Railway compound. It is also the consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses that the petitioner was an employee of the Railway Deptt. attached to Locoshed, Tinsukia. 7. It is the consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses that the petitioner was pushing/rolling the Drum near Locoshed inside the Railway compound. It is also the consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses that the petitioner was an employee of the Railway Deptt. attached to Locoshed, Tinsukia. 7. Now on the basis of prosecution evidence as stated above, let me examine whether the prosecution has established to prove its case with regard to unlawful possession of Railway as visu­alised U/S 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlaful Possession) Act, 1966, 8. Mr. J. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the prosecution has failed to estab­lish its case against the petitioner. He further submits that in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner was in unlawful possession of Railway property in as much as, mere pusing of drum does not constitute possession. He further submits that the drum in question was found in side the Railway compound. He has drawn my attention to seizure list Exhibit 7(i) which shows that the place of seizure as Locoshed, Tinsukia and the place from where seized is shown as Locoshed, Tinsukia maintained in Store Section, He, therefore, submits that the petitioner had no dominant control over the property and there was no conscious possession and or const­ructive possession over the property by the petitioner. In support of his contention he referred to a decision of this court rendered in Shri. Latin Ch. Dai vs. State of Assam, (1989) 2 GLR 198 wherein this Court has held that the possession of Railway property must be proved. 9. In the instant case it is the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the Drum belongs to the Railway property, that the said Drum was seived at Locoshed Tinsukia that the Drum was seized from Locoshed Tinsukia maintained in Store section. This would amply support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Drum was still in possession of the Railway and there was no occasion whatsoever for the petitioner to have come in constructive possession or dominant and, or conscious possession of the property in question. There is, there­fore, considerable force in submission of learned counsel foe the petitioner that the prosecution has failed to establish its case of unlawful possession of Railway property against the petitioner either by direct or by circumstantial evidence. 10. There is, there­fore, considerable force in submission of learned counsel foe the petitioner that the prosecution has failed to establish its case of unlawful possession of Railway property against the petitioner either by direct or by circumstantial evidence. 10. That apart, it is in evidence of prosecution witnesses that the petitioner was an employee of Railway Deptt. attached to Locoshed at Tinsukia at the relevant time. There is every poss­ibility that the petitioner was performing his normal duty by pushing the Drum for sizing. Thus preponderance of probabili­ties would go in favour of the petitioner. 11. As against this Mr. Gopal, learned P.P., submits that pusing/rolling of drum amounts to possession. This submission of learned P.P. appears to me to be too far fetched. As earlier stated that the term possession would mean constructive possession, conscious possession and dominion control over the prop­erty by the possessor. In the instant case, the petitioner was only pushing/rolling the Drum near the Locoshed inside the Railway compound. By no stretch of imagination such pushing/ rolling would constitute possession in the eye of law. In the result, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the petitioner. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned lower courts is hereby set aside. Petitioner is acquitted and set at liberty forthwith.