JUDGMENT S.R. Bhargava, J. - This revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is a sequel of an incident of 16th March, 1990. 2. At the relevant time of incident revisionist Raja Ram was electric fitter in general electric repair shop. Railway workshop, Gorakhpur, Ramdhani Tripathi, P.W. 2 was Rakshak in Railway Protection Force. Munstafa Husain, P.W. 3, was Gate Sergeant of the Railway workshop. Narendra Deo Sharma, P.W. 1, was Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in N. E. Railway with Headquarters at Gorakhpur, Gangotter Prasad P.W. 4 was Sub-Inspector of the Railway Protection Force. Prosecution Story is that on 16th March, 1980 at about 6.45 P.M. Rakshak Ramdhani Tripathi. P.W. 2, was on duty on the gate of the Railway workshop. Gate Sergeant Mustafa Husain was also on duty. Revisionist Raja Ram, after end of the shift, was going out of the gate. On his waist hard substance was palpated. On suspicion his clothes were taken off and on search three bunches of copper wire were recovered from him. They were sealed Recovery memo was prepared. Copper wire was sent for examination to Narendra Deo Sharma, P.W. 1, who submitted report, Exhibit 2, that they were used in various electrical equipments of the railways that in the present condition they were not serviceable, such railway material was not being auctioned such wire were available in the market such wires were used in various machines, equipments and installations of different shops as well as in repair shop and the approximate cost of then wire was Rs. 200/- case was investigated by Gangotter Prasad, P.W. 4, Ultimately, complaint for offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act was submitted against the ravisionist. 3. For bringing home the guilt against the revisionist prosecution examined the aforementioned Railway Engineer, P.W. I recovery witnesses Rakshak, P.W. 2, and gate sergeant P.W. 3, and Investigating Officer, P.W. 4, Prosecution further relied upon documents which need not be narrated in detail. 4. Defence of the revisionist was of denial and false implication on account of enmity. He asserted that he was asked to wear falsely against one Buniyad. He had litigation with his brother who was also working in the workshop. In collusion with his brother he was falsely implicated. 5. In his defence revisionist examined a clerk of the office of Deputy C. E. E. (W) P. Officer, North Western Railway, Gorakhpur. He asserted that he was asked to wear falsely against one Buniyad. He had litigation with his brother who was also working in the workshop. In collusion with his brother he was falsely implicated. 5. In his defence revisionist examined a clerk of the office of Deputy C. E. E. (W) P. Officer, North Western Railway, Gorakhpur. He filed application of the revisionist dated 19th March, 1980 in which revisionist had asserted his defence case. 6. Learned Magistrate believed the prosecution story. He found that copper wire was recovered from the revisionist as alleged by the prosecution and that it was railway property. He concluded that the revisionist committed offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act. But he found that one of the hands of the revisionist was broken hence noting this special and adequate reason he awarded fine of Rs. 1,000/- only as sentence to the revisionist. 7. Revisionist Raja Ram Preferred appeal. The learned lower Appellant court agreed with the findings of the Magistrate and confirmed conviction and sentence of the revisionist. 8. Being aggrieved, revisionist has come to this Court. 9. In this Court it was argued that the recovery as alleged by the prosecution was not proved. Rather it was made out that the revisionist was falsely implicated on account of enmity. It was further urged that prosecution examined only interested witnesses, namely, Rakshak and gate sergent and withheld possible independent witnesses. I have been taken through the evidence. In the cross- examination of the Rakshak and the gate sergeant there is nothing to show that they were annoyed on account of the intention of the Department concerned to falsely implicate one Buniyad. Rather it does not appear from the cross- examination of the Rakshak and the gate sergeant that they at all knew Buniyad. They also know nothing about litigation with brother of the revisionist. I hold that it cannot be said that Rakshak and gate sergeant examined in the case were interested witnesses and were not independent. Finding of recovery recorded by the two lower courts is a finding of fact. When both the lower courts arrived at the same conclusion on it shall not be possible for this Court to interfere in revision. 10. Then it was urged that it is not proved that the wire recovered from the revisionist was railway property. Finding of recovery recorded by the two lower courts is a finding of fact. When both the lower courts arrived at the same conclusion on it shall not be possible for this Court to interfere in revision. 10. Then it was urged that it is not proved that the wire recovered from the revisionist was railway property. The learned counsel for the revisionist emphasised that the wire did not have any railway marking. There is admission of the Railway Engineer that such wires could be obtained in market. It is true that there is no direct evidence that the wire recovered from the revisionist was railway property. But the circumstances are that revisionist was an electric fitter in the workshop. He was coming out after the shift and hard substance was palpated on his waist. His clothes were taken out and then only the three bunches of wire were recovered. All this means that the revisionist was taking away the wire from the workshop in a clandestine manner. This is evident that such wire was being used in the railway workshop. There is also evidence that it was scrap then the circumstance is that the revisionist denied recovery and offered a false explanation of enmity. Nature of property can be proved both by direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence. It is true that there is no evidence that the wire in question was recorded in stock Register of the workshop. Even then the circumstances narrated above are strong enough and they irresistibly lead to the conclusion that the wire recovered from the revisionist was railway property. In this connection the lower appellate court rightly placed reliance on the case of Ganesh Chaudhary v. State, 1981 Cr. L.J. 812. Revisionist did not offer any explanation for possession of the wire which has been found to be railway property. Hence his conviction for offence under Section 3 of the Railway property (Unlawful possession) Act cannot be disturbed. 11. Then coming to the question of sentence it may be pointed out that in clause (a) of Section 3 for the first offence minimum sentence of one year and fine of Rs. 100/- are prescribed. A lesser punishment can be awarded only if there are special and adequate reasons. The Magistrate found that one of the hands of the revisionist is broken. 100/- are prescribed. A lesser punishment can be awarded only if there are special and adequate reasons. The Magistrate found that one of the hands of the revisionist is broken. I hold that in not awarding jail sentence the Magistrate did not commit any leniency. Fine of Rs. 1,000/- now deserves attention. Incident took place about 11 years ago Revisionist has already suffered prosecution in two lower courts. Consequence is to ensue in his services taking all the circumstances into consideration think that maximum sentence of fine permissible under clause (a) need not be inflicted. I hold that in the circumstance of the case fine of Rs. 500/- shall serve ends of justice. Hence this revision should be partly allowed and the fine of the revisionist should be reduced to Rs. 500/-. 12. The learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that the revisionist would lose his service as a consequence of his conviction. If even now the authorities of the revisionist treat the offence of the revisionist as an act of moral terpitude revisionist would certainly be liable to be dismissed on ground of his conviction. But that is a matter of discretion and whether it should be exercised after 11 years of the incident or offence, is again a departmental matter in which this court need not interfere. 13. In result, this revision is partly allowed. Conviction of the revisionist with offence under Section 3 of the Railway property (unlawful possession) Act is confirmed. His sentence is reduced to fine of Rs. 500/- which he should deposit within a month.