Judgment : The respondent herein who is the accused in C.C.No.116 of 1983 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kulithalai was charged for an offence under Sec.3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 as he was found in possession of 13 steel keys belonging to the Railways, out of which four numbers were having the Railway markings. The accused has not offered any explanation with regard to his unlawful possession of the Railway property before the Magistrate. Learned Magistrate found him guilty and convicted him. Further, learned Magistrate instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, released him under Sec.4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.500 with one surety for the like sum to the effect that he will appear and receive the sentence, whenever called upon during a period of six months from that date and in the mean time to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 2. In the appeal by State it is represented that a minimum imprisonment of one year is prescribed under Sec.3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, in the absence of special and adequate reasons and as such the Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable. Learned Public Prosecutor also cited a decision of this Court reported in Sekar v. State by Assistant Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force, 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 44, wherein Maheswaran, J. observed that the provision under Sec.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. Learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the trial Court ought to have awarded a substantive term of imprisonment. 3. As against the said contention, learned counsel appearing for the accused referred to a decision of this Court reported in State by Public Prosecutor v. Rathinavelu, 1972 L.W. (Crl.) 167, wherein it was held as follows: “Except in regard to the offences specifically referred to in Sec.18 of the Probation of Offenders Act, other offences under the other acts even though a minimum sentence is provided for, the benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act could be applied if the other condition are satisfied. Hence it is open to the Court while trying a person and convicting him of an offence under Sec.3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act to direct his release under Sec.4(1) of the Prorbation of Offenders Act”. 4. Admittedly, the application of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act has not been excluded in the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. Therefore, I feel in the absence of a specific bar to the applicability of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act could be applied to the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. In this case, the stolen articles, viz. 13 stee| keys which were found in the possession of the accused were found only in the Railway track without removal of any Railway fittings. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, learned Magistrate has correctly applied the provisions of Sec.4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act and directed the accused to execute a bond for Rs.500 with one surety for the like sum. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the accused contended that when the accused was not in a position to engage any lawyer, the trial Court ought to have provided free legal assistance to him and that therefore, the entire proceeding initiated against the accused is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision in Sukdas v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, A.I.R.1986 S.C. 991. In case, the appellants did not engage any lawyer. But in the present case, the accused had engaged a lawyer. But it is seen that learned counsel who appeared for him in the trial Court has not cross examined any prosecution witness. As such, the said decision will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The accused is an uneducated and unemployed person. Taking the above facts and that steel keys were found loose in the railway track, when the accused took them, he has been dealt with under Probation of Offenders Act. Hence there is no need to interfere with the order. 6. In the circumstances, I confirm the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the accused to execute a bond for Rs.500 under Sec.4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. 7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.