A. K. DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) THE instant Revisional Application by the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused) under Section 401, read with Section 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 11. 3. 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Asansol in Criminal Appeal No. 54/41 of 1989 before him on the grounds set forth therein. ( 2 ) THE facts, as may be relevant for the disposal of the instant Revisional Application, may be shortly stated as follows: upon receipt of repeated informations from the Shop Authority of Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (hereinafter referred to as C. L. W.) regarding missing of check nuts fitted on oxygen gas cylinders supplied to it, special watch was kept over the same. During such watch on 8. 9. 1983 at about 19-05 hours at Steel Foundry at But No. 91, the P. W. 7 Sadananda Ojha, an R. P. F. Rakshak, had been the accused Chandrabati Sharma removing (brass) checknuts from gas cylinders with the help of an iron instrument, and keeping the same in his pocket. On being challenged, the accused started fleeing way, and had been apprehended after chase by the said Rakshak, who had raised an outery chor chor, whereupon another Rakshak P. W. 8 R. B. Sharma had also reached the spot and had surrounded the accused. The accused was found to be in possession of eleven check nuts (brass) and one wrench. The aforesaid two Rakshaks had taken him along with the said articles to R. P. F. Post, whereupon the accused had been arrested, and the said articles had been seized upon preparation of a Seizure List. The accused had thereupon been prosecuted for an alleged offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter shortened into Act ). The learned Magistrate upon trial had found accused guilty to the aforesaid offence and had accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- only in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months only. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence so passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused had preferred an appeal before the local Sessions Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 15/41 of 1988. 1,000/- only in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months only. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence so passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused had preferred an appeal before the local Sessions Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 15/41 of 1988. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at Asansol upon due hearing had dismissed the said appeal, confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for the reasons recorded at length in his impugned judgment. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order so passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Asansol, the accused has exercised this Court in Revision under Section 401, read with Section 482 of the Code for the reliefs sought for. ( 5 ) AS already indicated, the accused has been prosecuted for an alleged offence punishable under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act. The ingredients of the said offence are as follows: (i) the property in question should be Rail way Property; (ii) it should be reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained: and (iii) it should be found or proved that the accused was or had been in possession of that property. ( 6 ) THE learned Advocate for the accused had waxed eloquent that having regard to the evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial none of the aforesaid ingredients could be established. He had taken me through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by producing the certified copies thereof in support of his said contention. True it is, a long standing practice has grown up to confine the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 401 of the Code only to questions of law. But the terms of the Section are wide enough to permit interference with findings of facts where there are very exceptional grounds for its interference. . . True it is, a long standing practice has grown up to confine the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 401 of the Code only to questions of law. But the terms of the Section are wide enough to permit interference with findings of facts where there are very exceptional grounds for its interference. . . in the interest of justice, or where there arc such exceptional grounds, e. g. , a misstatement of evidence by the lower Court or a misconstruction or mis-reading of documentary evidence or to prevent a gross and palpable failure of justice, or where the finding of fact depends on a correct interpretation of law or where the lower Courts have approached the case from a wrong point of view and the evidence produced has not received due consideration, or where the findings of fact are not based on evidence on record and are proved to be wrong from the record itself, or where the judgment of the lower Court is palpably wrong, or where the case appears to be doubtful against the accused and the benefit of doubt has not been given. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind I would feel inclined to enter into the questions of facts and evidence in the nature of the relevant case for the reasons I shall presently discuss. ( 7 ) THE Trial Court as also the Lower Appellate Court appear to have mainly and inevitably relied upon the evidence of the P. W. 7 Sadananda Ojha and the P. W. 8 R. B. Sharma, the two R. P. F. Rakshaks, in finding the accused guilty to the charge levelled against him. The said two witnesses are the only witnesses to the alleged apprehension of the accused and recovery of the articles in question from his possession. As stated by the P. W. 8 himself in his cross-examination besides himself and the P. W. 7 Sadananda none of the of the Foundry Shop know that one person was arrested. Let me now scan their evidence to ascertain how far they have proved the alleged apprehension of the accused and recovery of the articles in question from his possession, the way alleged by the prosecution. Let me now scan their evidence to ascertain how far they have proved the alleged apprehension of the accused and recovery of the articles in question from his possession, the way alleged by the prosecution. ( 8 ) THE P. W. 7 had stated in his examination that while on watch duty on the relevant day and time he had seen the accused opening (brass) check nuts from the gas cylinders by a wrench. On being challenged by him, the accused had tried to flee away, whereupon he had raised an outcry Chor Chor. On hearing the same, the P. W. 8 R. B. Sharma had appeared there, and both of them had surrounded the accused, and he (P. W. 7) had ultimately caught him (accused ). They both searched him and recovered eleven nuts (brass) and one wrench from his possession. They had taken him (accused), along with the said alamats to the office (meaning R. P. F. Post) and in his examination-in-chief, that they both (meaning himself and the P. W. 8) had caught the accused. In the same breath he went on to state during further cross-examination that the accused was caught by P. W. 8 R. B. Sharma. The evidence of the P. W. 7 on the point of apprehension of the accused appear to be so notoriously incoherent as could hardly be relied upon. The P. W. 8 R. B. Sharma had stated in his examination-in-chief that they both (meaning himself and the P. W. 7) had caught the accused and had recovered eleven pieces of nuts and one wrench from him. But hears well had stated in his cross-examination, contrary to what he had stated in his examination-in-chief, that upon hearing the "haiia" he went to the spot and found P. W. 7 Sadananda arrested the accused. He went on add further during his cross-examination that when he first saw, he saw the accused arrested, obviously implying that he did not apprehend the accused. He had further stated during his cross-examination. Contrary to his evidence in chief, that he had found the articles in question in the land of P. W. 7 Sadananda, belying his evidence in chief that they both had recovered the articles in question from the accused. He had further stated during his cross-examination. Contrary to his evidence in chief, that he had found the articles in question in the land of P. W. 7 Sadananda, belying his evidence in chief that they both had recovered the articles in question from the accused. He had further stated in his cross-examination that he found the accused arrested inside the Steel Foundry, obviously implying that he did not apprehend him, along with the P. W. 7. as stated in his examination-in-chief. His evidence as well suffers from inherent contradiction unworthy of credit. The P. W. 8 had stated in his cross-examination that no other man was working at that place at the relevant point of time. He had further added that besides himself and the P. W. 7 Sadananda, none of the Foundry Shop knew that the accused had been arrested. But the P. W. 7 Sadananda had stated to the contrary that many persons were working at that place. He, however, could not say the names of the persons who were then working in the factory. The evidences of the P. W. 7 and 8 on the aforesaid point could neither be reconciled. Even though according to the P. W. 7 many persons were working at that place at the relevant point of time, unhappily for the prosecution, none of them has been examined by them in support of the case. These other employees would have been independent and non-partisan witnesses in the case in question. No explanation has either been issued by the prosecution for their non-examination. They appear to have been deliberately withheld. Adverse presumption under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act would, therefore, quite naturally arise against the prosecution case in point. It would also be pertinent to note that the P. Ws. 7 and 8, the two R. P. F. Rakshaks, had only been examined in support of the prosecution case on the aforesaid point. No independent witness has been presented by the prosecution, though available, as appearing from the evidence of the P. W. 7. The evidence of the P. Ws. 7 and 8, being R. P. F. personnels, must plainly be received with a pinch of salt in the absence of any independent evidence. That apart, the evidence of the P. Ws. No independent witness has been presented by the prosecution, though available, as appearing from the evidence of the P. W. 7. The evidence of the P. Ws. 7 and 8, being R. P. F. personnels, must plainly be received with a pinch of salt in the absence of any independent evidence. That apart, the evidence of the P. Ws. 7 and 8 on the aforesaid relevant points regarding the alleged apprehension of the accused and recovery of the articles in question from his possession during the relevant point of time appear to be widely discrepant and so notoriously incoherent and inconsistent as could scarcely be reconciled and relied upon. The prosecution clearly, therefore, appears to have pointedly failed to prove their case on the aforesaid points. ( 9 ) THE prosecution further appears to have lamentably failed to prove the recovery of the articles in question from the possession of accused concerned. We have it from the evidence of the P. W. 5 Dilip Kumar Palit in his cross-examination that the seized articles were produced by R. S. Sharma, the accused himself. He stated that the nuts were in his pocket and the instrument was in his hand. But the P. W. 7 Sadananda had stated during his cross-examination that R. C. Chowdhury, the P. W. 6, had brought out the nuts from the pocket and the accused when he had seen them for the first time Amazingly. the P. W. 6, R. C. Chowdhury, did not state so. He had stated to the contrary during his cross-examination that the P. W. 7 Sadananda had brought. the alarnats. The P. W. 8 R. B. Sharma had as well as stated during his cross-examination that he found the articles in question in hand of the P. W. 7 Sadananda. The evidence of the P. Ws. 5, 7 and 8 regarding recovery of the articles in question from the possession of the accused are as well too highly discrepant to be acceptable. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid nature of evidence presented by the prosecution, the Trial Court as also the Lower Appellate Court clearly appear to have gone grievously wrong in finding the accused guilty to the charge on the plea that the discrepancies in the evidence of the P. Ws. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid nature of evidence presented by the prosecution, the Trial Court as also the Lower Appellate Court clearly appear to have gone grievously wrong in finding the accused guilty to the charge on the plea that the discrepancies in the evidence of the P. Ws. are too minor to be reckoned with, whereas the evidence on record are, in fact, so widely divergent (as noted above) which could barely be relied upon. ( 11 ) IT would again be pertinent to note that the prosecution has as well remarkably failed to establish that the articles in question, stated to have been recovered from the possession of the accused, are Railway properties within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. The P. W. I P. Singh, had clearly stated during his cross-examination that the nuts in question did not bear any marking thereon. The P. W. 2, M. P. Shibdas sought to state that the some cylinder nuts were missing from the shop on 8. 9. 1993. But he had admitted during his cross-examination that he had no direct knowledge about the incident. He had further clearly admitted that such nuts are available in the market. The P. W. 3, H. D. Dutta, has as well clearly admitted during his cross-examination that such nuts are available in the ordinary market. None of the said P. Ws. I to 3 had stated that the seized nuts in question are Railways properties, in possession of the Railways. The prosecution had examined the P. W. 4, R. P. Shanna, Assistant Branch Manager, Asiatic Oxygen Limited, in support of the prosecution case. But the P. W. 4 did neither state that the seized articles in question are Railway properties. It was neither put to him by the prosecution as to whether the seized nuts in question are the nuts of the cylinders supplied by them to the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works. His evidence as such appears to be of little assistance to the prosecution. The P. W. 5, Dilip Kumar Palit, the O. C and the 1. 0. of the case, had admitted during his examination-in-chief that he had obtained Expert's opinion. Curiously, however, the same had not been produced before the Court. No explanation has either been offered therefore. His evidence as such appears to be of little assistance to the prosecution. The P. W. 5, Dilip Kumar Palit, the O. C and the 1. 0. of the case, had admitted during his examination-in-chief that he had obtained Expert's opinion. Curiously, however, the same had not been produced before the Court. No explanation has either been offered therefore. The Expert's Report admittedly obtained by the P. W. 5 clearly, therefore, appears to have been deliberately withheld from the Court. Adverse presumption under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act would, therefore, quite naturally arise against the prosecution case on the point. It would again be interesting to note that the seized nuts in question had neither been checked up with the gas cylinders without nuts, possession of the C. L. W. , for ascertaining whether those were some of the nuts missing from the cylinders supplied to the C. L. W. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence on record it could hardly be held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the articles in question are Railway properties within the meaning of Section 3 of the relevant Act. More so, since the prosecution case about recovery of the same from the possession of the accused from within the Railway Workshop, very much banked upon by the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court, has been miserably disproved for the reasons already discussed above. ( 12 ) UPON the premises above, both the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court clearly went miserably astray in holding the accused guilty to the alleged offence and convicting and sentencing him therefore, the way they did. The findings of the Trial Court as also to Lower Appellate Court are not clearly based on the evidence on record, and are proved to be wrong from the record itself, as indicated above. The judgments of the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court clearly appear to be palpably wrong, which are required to be interfered with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in the interest of justice. ( 13 ) IN the result, the Revisional Application succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 11. 3. 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned be hereby set aside. ( 13 ) IN the result, the Revisional Application succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 11. 3. 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned be hereby set aside. The petitioner accused be held not guilty to the alleged offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. He be acquitted from the said charge and be set at liberty at once. He also be discharged from the relevant Fine Bond. Revision allowed.