VIRENDRA SARAN, J. This appeal has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Judgment and order, dated 17th, February 1982 of the Judicial Magistrate, Northern Railway, Lucknow acquitting respondent Shailendra Kumar Srivastava of the charge under Section 3 of the Railway property (Unlawful Possession) Act in Case No. 241 of 1978. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 4th March 1978 at about 9. 40 a. m. Head-constable Ram Lal and Constable Kamlesh Chandra were cheking fittings of train No. 39-Up. While doing so, they found that a First-class coupe in bogie No. 788 was bolted from within. They knocked at the door of said coupe for a considerable time and only thereafter one person opened the door. When the Constables went inside the coupe, they found that the raxine (oil-cloth) of the lower-berth of the compartment had been cut off. The person who came out of the compartment was arrested and he disclosed his name as Shailendra Kumar Srivastava son of Gokaran Nath Srivastava, resident of Kalui-khera, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Rai bareli. On a search being made, a piece of raxine was found in possession of the respondent. 3. At the trial, the respondent pleaded not guilty. 4. In support of its case the prosecution examined (P. W. 1) Raghuvir Singh, (P. W. 2) Kamlesh Chandra, (P. W. 3) R. M. Shukla, (P. W. 4) O. P. Srivastava, (P. W. 5) Head-Con stable Ram Lal and (P. W. 6) Sankata Singh. 5. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Railway Magistrate found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and acquitted the respondent. The State has now come-up in appeal. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the State at length and have gone through the material placed before me. 7. (P. W. 3) R. M. Sharma, Head TX. R. stated in his evidence that on that very day he had examined the coupe at 9. 40 a. m. and found the oil cloth (raxine) missing. He prepared Inspection note in which this fact is mentioned in black and white. The learned Magistrate has held that in case the coupe had already been inspected at 9. 40 a. m. then the prosecution case that the coupe was found bolted from within at 9. 40 a. m. and found the oil cloth (raxine) missing. He prepared Inspection note in which this fact is mentioned in black and white. The learned Magistrate has held that in case the coupe had already been inspected at 9. 40 a. m. then the prosecution case that the coupe was found bolted from within at 9. 45 a. m. and after lot of efforts the respondent opened the coupe and was found in possession of the raxine, is rendered unworthy of credence. The learned Magistrate has also held that (P. W. 2) Kamlesh Chandra has stated that the facts were mentioned by the witness in the checking book. The checking book has not been produced in Court. In the second place, the statement of (P. W. 2) Kamlesh Chandra goes to show that he had simply mentioned the facts in the checking book and he does not speak about any recovery memo being prepared at the spot in the coupe. (P. W. 2) Kamlesh Chandra is specific in stating that apart from the checking book, no other recovery memo was prepared. (P. W. 2) Kamlesh Chandra further stated that the thumb impression of the respondent was taken with the ink of a pen but the recovery memo which has been produced in Court shows the thumb impression with the ink of stamp-pad. Learned Magistrate has rightly held that the constables who are simply inspecting compartments of the train do not caryink pads with them and this goes to show that the recovery memo was prepared at the R. P. F. Post. 8. Another important fact which has been noticed by the learned Magistrate is that the Piece of raxine alleged to be found in possession of the respondent had been cut to proportionate size and yet another fact which deserves to be mentioned is that the respondent was not found in possession of any instrument such as scissors etc. This takes the wind out of the soils of the prosecution. 9. (P. W. 4) O. P. Srivastava, who investigated the case admitted that at platform No. 6 besides tea-stalls there are loft of vendors and the persons at the tea-stalls were not mentioned in the recovery memo. He did not interrogate these persons. The duty of the Investigating Officer is not to support any theory but to find out the truth. (P. W. 4) O. P. Srivastava, who investigated the case admitted that at platform No. 6 besides tea-stalls there are loft of vendors and the persons at the tea-stalls were not mentioned in the recovery memo. He did not interrogate these persons. The duty of the Investigating Officer is not to support any theory but to find out the truth. This simply goes to show that the Investigating Officer did not interrogate any of the vendors or the tea-stall owners as he knew that they would not support the case as set-up by the prosecution. 10. Having given my anxious consideration to the entire facts of the case, I do not find any infermity in the Judgment and order appealed against and it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate were either perverse, improper or un reasonable so as to call for interference in an appeal against acquittal. 11. In view of the discussion made above, this appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed .