Judgment : 1. The revision petitioner S.A.Babu was accused In C.C.No.86 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No.2, Tiruchirapalli. 2. Learned Magistrate, on the material placed before him, found the accused guilty under Sec.3(s) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’), convicted him there under and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default to simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A.No.121 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Session, Tiruchirapalli. Learned Sessions Judge, on perusal of the materials available on record and on hearing respective learned Counsel, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence, giving rise to the present revision. 4. The gravamen of the accusation was that on 22.8.1983 at about 10.30 A.M., the revision petitioner-accused was proceeding in a cycle with a gunny bag kept in the carrier at a place where Palakkarai-Pudukkottai Road and the road from Mudaliarchathiram joins at the Goods Shed Road and he was intercepted by P.W.1, Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Tiruchirapalli and on such search, it was found that the gunny bag contained four A/c. Chairs -M.O.1 series-belonging to the Railways. 5. The prosecution relied upon the testimony of P.W.1, Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force and P. W.4, an independent witness for the seizure of M.O.1 series-four A/c. chairs from the custody and possession of the revision petitioner-accused on the said date. No doubt true it is that P.W.4 turned hostile wholesale to the prosecution, the consequence of which was that the evidentiary value that could be attached to his testimony is practically ‘nil’ and consequently, no reliance could be placed on his testimony. Both the trial as well as the appellant Courts rightly did not place any sort of a reliance on such testimony for the seizure of those four A/c. chairs from the custody and possession of the accused. 6. The only evidence available on record is the evidence of P.W.1, of course, a witness belonging to the railway protection force, as already indicated. The fact that he belongs to the railway protection force, is not by itself sufficient to eschew his testimony out of consideration. 6. The only evidence available on record is the evidence of P.W.1, of course, a witness belonging to the railway protection force, as already indicated. The fact that he belongs to the railway protection force, is not by itself sufficient to eschew his testimony out of consideration. His evidence has to be viewed, analysed and applied to the case in the adjudication of the guilt or otherwise of the accused as any other witness and if there are no infirmities or inherent improbabilities or material contradictions in his testimony, then it goes without saying that there is nothing wrong in placing reliance on such testimony and fastening criminal liability upon the accused. Nothing is shown as to the existence of any such infirmities in the evidence of P.W.1 for the rejection of his testimony. This aspect of the matter had been duly taken into account by both the courts below in the discussion and consideration of his evidence and they had acted upon his evidence as regards the factum of seizure of the four A/c. chairs from the custody and possession of the accused. 7. Even as respects the other question, viz., the identity of the properties as ones belonging to the railways, apart from the testimony of P.W.1, there is also the testimony of P.W.3 Permanent Way Inspector, who had expertise knowledge by his long tenure in identification of the properties belonging to the railways an he, in fact, on inspection of the four A/c. chairs-M.O.i series-gave a certificate under Ex.P-3 opining that all those A/c. chairs were the properties belonging to the railways. His evidence would also disclose that of the four chairs excepting one, all the three chairs were bearing the insignia or marking of the railway properties and the marking of one of the chairs was even effaced. The eraser of the mark in one of the chairs, he would say, was not posing any problem for him to identify the chair, as the one belonging to the railways. From a mere look of that chair, he was able to say that the chair belonged to the railways, not with standing the fact that the chair was not containing any mark. From a mere look of that chair, he was able to say that the chair belonged to the railways, not with standing the fact that the chair was not containing any mark. Such evidence cannot be brushed aside, as one can very well visualise in day-to-day life that one can identify a property as his, by his long association with such property, not with standing the fact that such property is not bearing any identification mark, inasmuch as an intranslavable impression had been formed in his mind, so as to come to a conclusion that by a very look of such a property, he would be able to identify that it was his property. Applying such a principle, the evidence of P.W.3 as to the identity of one of the chairs as belonging to the railways, even in the absence of any mark thereon cannot be belittled. As such, both the Courts below have correctly sifted and placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.3 as those chairs belonging to the railways. 8. Under Sec.3 of the Act, once the properties are proved to be railway properties, then it is for the accused, from whose possession the properties were seized, to prove that he came into possession of such properties lawfully and in the absence of such proof forthcoming, it goes without saying that such a person had been in unlawful possession of the railway properties, thereby liable to be punished for such unlawful possession. Nothing is traceable or available on record as to any material forthcoming from the side of the accused pointing out that he came into possession of the four A/c. chairs in a lawful way. 9. In this view of the matter, or the reasons as above, the revision deserved to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.