G. K. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS Government appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th November, 1976 passed by Sri. K. N. Singh, Railway Magistrate, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 1683 of 1975 by which the accused persons have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, has been that on 12th April, 1975 Munni Lal Inspector, C. I. B. R. P. F. alongwith Sri Kant Tripathi, Han Singh Arya and others happened to see the accused persons Amarjjt Singh, Salim, Yamin alias Pantel and Waris going from east to west in Aligarh Railway-yard at about 2-00 P. M. and, as they were carrying something on their shoulders, the aforesaid party of Railway Protection Force challenged them and after a short chase apprehended them and recovered one fish plate and two nos. T. W. keys from the possession of Amarjit Singh; one fish plate and 2 nos. T. Waykeys from the possession of Salim; one fish plate broken and 2 Nos. T. way keys from the possession of Yamin alias Pantel arid one fish plate and two allotted holes and shin and two Nos. Two way keys from the possession of Waris. The aforesaid recovered properties were sealed at the spot and a complaint was filed against the accused persons after investigation of the case. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Satish Chand. (P. W. 1) who has given his report to the effect that the articles in question were railway property and that each item costs approximately Rs: 10/- only and that except item no. 1 and 2 others were not serviceable. The prosecution has also examined Han Singh Atya S. I. R. P. F. (P. W. 2) and Sri Kant Tripathi Head R. K. (P. W. 3) who have deposed about the recovery of the property and arrest of the accused persons. P. W. 4 D. L. Shah investigated the case and had prepared the siteplan Ex. Ka. 4. ( 3 ) ACCUSED persons pleaded not guilty. They did not give any evidence in defence. ( 4 ) THE learned Trial Court found the case not proved and acquitted the accused persons of the charge for which they were tried. P. W. 4 D. L. Shah investigated the case and had prepared the siteplan Ex. Ka. 4. ( 3 ) ACCUSED persons pleaded not guilty. They did not give any evidence in defence. ( 4 ) THE learned Trial Court found the case not proved and acquitted the accused persons of the charge for which they were tried. ( 5 ) FEELING dissatisfied with the order of acquittal the State has preferred this appeal. ( 6 ) HEARD learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the accused persons and perused the record of the case. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the State argued that the incident in question had taken place inside the prohibited area and the railway property had been recovered from the possession of the accused persons. His argument has been that the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. ( 8 ) THE evidence about the place of arrest of the accused persons is not consistent. According to Han Singh Arya S. I. (P. W. 2) the arrest was made near the railway line situate close to the Cinema Hall. Sri Kant Tripathi has also stated that the place of arrest shown to the Investigating Officer was near the Cinema Hall. According to the Investigating Officer the place of occurrence was 25 steps from Delhiwala gate. Moreover, it has come in evidence that the place of occurrence was close to the railway crossing gate No. 11-1 situate on main road and there is regular heavy traffic both pedestrians and vehicular in the day. It is also in evidence that this locality is thickly populated locality situate near the place of occurrence. The gateman was also said to be present at the gate. The learned Trial Court in view of the aforesaid facts was justified in holding that in ordinary course of business the incident ought to have been witnessed by the gate man and other persons of the public but no one amongst them have been examined or cited as witness in the case. He has also referred to certain contradiction in the testimony of Itari Singh Arya and Sri Kant Tripathi and therefore, not believed them on the question or arrest and recovery. He has also referred to certain contradiction in the testimony of Itari Singh Arya and Sri Kant Tripathi and therefore, not believed them on the question or arrest and recovery. ( 9 ) UNDER these circumstances I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ( 10 ) THE appeal is dismissed. .