This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 26.7.85 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Criminal Appeal No.3 (1) of 1985. 2. The respondents are scrap iron dealers and regular purchaser of scrap iron from Railway. On 9.9.82, one SI of Railway Protection Force along with his men search the godown and house premises of the respondents in presence of witnesses and found and recovered materials like 27 new bogie coil spring, steel flat spring (14 in numbers) buffer coil spring etc. alleged to have been stolen away. Statements were recorded by RPF personnels after the seizure of the stolen materials. In the trial the Chief Judicial Magistrate found them guilty under section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act, convicted them under the said section and sentence to suffer 1 year RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- m default 3 months RI. In appeal, the Sessions Judge acquitted them by his impugned judgment and order as aforesaid. 3. Heard Mr. BB Narzary, learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Mr. NC Das for the respondents. I perused the judgments of the Courts below and the evidence both oral and documents on record. 4. The point for consideration before this Court is that whether the material, seized by the prosecution after search was railway property and whether the respondents were bonafide purchasers of those seized materials. 5. Prosecution's contention was that admittedly the respondents were dealers in scrap materials and admittedly they dealt in scrap material business. But the seized materials were illegally possessed, which were Railway proper ties and knowing them to be stolen properties kept those in their custody. 6. Mr. Narzary, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the cases under RP (UP) Act was special in nature and some privileges are given to the pros­ecution to prove the case. Even not proving the part of admission of the accused persons in respect to the possession of the Railway properties, prosecution was able to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt that it was a case of theft of Railway property and those Railway properties were recovered from the premises of the respondents as stolen properties. 7. From the records it is seen that prosecution witnesses clearly stated that there was report of theft of materials and those materials were mentioned in the Diary. Admittedly commission of theft was not denied by the defence. 7. From the records it is seen that prosecution witnesses clearly stated that there was report of theft of materials and those materials were mentioned in the Diary. Admittedly commission of theft was not denied by the defence. PW 1, the SDR in his evidence stated that there was report in respect to the theft and subsequently got the order of search and seized the stolen materials from the godown and premises of the respondents. PW 2 Bidya Dihingia of Assam Police Constable, PW 3 Asgar Ali, SI, Assam Police, PW 7, Smti Sakhina Gogoi, Police Constable, PW 9 - Surendra Kumar, Inspector of Railway Police Force corroborated the evidence of each other and were uni­form in their depositions in respect to search warrant, search and seizures. It was also disclosed in evidence on record that though one of the accused respondents (Arjun Shah) was absent at the time of searches (2 nos), the wife of this Arjun Shah and other accused Bhognarayan Shah, his brother was present all along and in their presence materials were seized. The view of the lower appellate Court that those materials were under lawful possession of the respondents has not been substantiated by any defence witness, nor by its suggestions. Even if we discard the confession part of the accused, the corro­borated, uniformed prosecution witnesses were sufficient to bring home the prosecution story. 8. As already discussed, the prosecution did not challenge the fact that the accused persons were the dealer of the iron scraps. But the point for consideration is whether the materials as possessed by bonafide purchase along with other materials purchased by the accused persons. As evidence on record, immediately after seizure the materials were inspected by an expert of the Railway Department. Admittedly there were no identification mark in those properties to prove the same as the Railway property and admittedly the evidence was that such materials are available with big machinery shops and that there were firms which manufacture such materials. Prosecution prove those materials as Railway property by adducing expert prosecution witness. PW 4 stated that he examined the spring plate and found them to be the Railway property and he specifically stated that those were used to manufact­ure the springs used by Railway. PW 5 stated that those are used in boiler and these are exclusively railway property for which he gave certificate (Ext 5). PW 4 stated that he examined the spring plate and found them to be the Railway property and he specifically stated that those were used to manufact­ure the springs used by Railway. PW 5 stated that those are used in boiler and these are exclusively railway property for which he gave certificate (Ext 5). Though there was no identification mark PW 6 who was the Senior Chargeman of the Workshop, on examination he found those materials to be the Railway properties exclusively used by Railways and gave certificate (Ext 7) to that effect. But the defence could not produce any documentary evidence. That those were purchased from any big machinery shops and manufactured by so and so manufacturing times. The lower appellate Court was wrong in holding the properties not Railway properties basing his finding on the prosecution witness. It was the onus of the defence to substantiate it claim of bonafide purchase of those materials on documentary evidence. Statement of prosecution witness did not show that those particular seized properties were purchased from a particular big shop or were manufactured by such firm. In view of absence of any evidence to substantiate the bonafide purchase of those articles, the prosecution's claim of those properties as Railway property stands undisputed. On the evidence on record I hold that prosecution proved those materials as railway properties and the accused persons were not bona­fide purchaser of those properties. Further the evidence of those DW 2 established the fact that though by the Ext B. Exhibited by defence the accused persons had purchased wagons of Railway properties in auction, there were some list of articles which were to be referred to the Railway depart­ment and he specifically stated that by Ext A those articles were to be returned. The seizure list corroborated this fact that the seized materials were not scrap materials and those are new materials. Even if the accused-respondents, by Ext B taken permission of cutting of wagon taken in auction, he has taken only one eight wheelers wagon and rest of the wagons - one 4 wheelers wagon. The seizure list corroborated this fact that the seized materials were not scrap materials and those are new materials. Even if the accused-respondents, by Ext B taken permission of cutting of wagon taken in auction, he has taken only one eight wheelers wagon and rest of the wagons - one 4 wheelers wagon. Evidence of PW 6 (the expert) shows that bougie coil springs 37 in numbers were exclusively used in 8 wheelers wagon and not 4 wheelers wagon and there is no explanation, oral or documentary on record, to show the presence of such huge quantity of articles in their possession by purchase from outside or by auction from Railway. The learned lower appellate Court's conclusion that there was no conclusive evidence to prove the articles belong to Railway and that prosecution could not establish the fact of truth, in my view was not by inconsistent and perversed, but the finding was concluded without appreciation of evidence on record. I also can not subscribe to the conclusion of the lower appellate Court on putting and establishing the burden of proving the fact of theft and proof of Railway property on the prosecution. On materials on record the lower appellate Court should have come to the decision of acquittal of misleading of facts and law. The fact that the materials seized were Railway properties and that those were illegally possessed by accused persons were established by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. 9. In view of my above discussion the accused-persons are liable to be punished under section 3 (a) of Railway Property (UP) Act. I restore and confirm the judgment of the trial Court and set aside the appellate judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. 10. Mr. Das learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if respondents are found to be guilty, their sentence may be considered leniently as the case is a long pending case and the respondents were acquitted by the lower appellate Court on appeal against the judgment of the trial Court. I find there is force in his submission. The sentence of one year Rigorous imprisonment is modified and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand ) each, in default 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The appeal is partly allowed with the above modification.