Judgment 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire prosecution of the petitioners in R. RF. Case No.93/89 arising out of Danapur R. P. F. Case No.5 (10) 89 dated 31.10.89 including the order dated 20.6.1995 passed therein by which the learned Judicial Magistrate (Railways) has refused to discharge the petitioners and has directed them to remain physically present in court for framing of charge under Section 3 (a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 2. It appears that on 31.10.1989 at about 9.30 RM. in the night while informant chandradeo Thakur, S. I. of R. RF. Danapur, tileshwar Kumar, Hawaldar of R. RF. Danapur, Avinash Chandra Singh, S. I of r. P. F. Danapur were on round-duty in the railway yard at Danapur, they saw four persons (petitioner nos.1 to 4) going with some articles towards north from the open wagon near the railway goods shed. They also saw jeep no. BR-A-545-P standing to the North of the railway goods shed and the said persons were loading the articles therein. It further appears that the informant and his two companions went there and found two articles of aluminium 7 in length, two other articles of aluminium about 4 in length and one iron hathaura, one screw driver, four wrench loaded in the Jeep and two articles bearing yellow paint made of iron lying on the ground by the side of the jeep. It is alleged that on being asked, the said four persons who are petitioner nos.1 to 4 in this petition, gave out their names and told the informant that they were employees of M/s Speed Craft Private Ltd. but they neither produced any authority with regard to the said articles nor gave any satisfactory reply with regard thereto. It has also been alleged that Rohtas Singh (petitioner no.1) who is the Supervisor in the said company, stated before the informant that sri H. K. Sharma (petitioner no.5)Manager of the company, brought them there by the said jeep and directed them to take out the said parts, from the Tamper loaded on the wagon and carry the same to the factory. Thereafter, the informant seized the said articles under the seizure list, arrested the aforesaid petitioner nos.1 to 4 and on his report, a case for enquiry was registered being case no.5 (10)89 dated 31.10.1989 under section 3 of Railway property (Unlawful Possession) Act for enquiry. After enquiry a complaint was filed before the Railway Magistrate which gave rise to R. P. F. Case No.93/89. Subsequently, by order dated 6.10.1990 the Judicial magistrate (Railways) Patna, took cognizance of an offence under setion 3 of the railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The petitioners after appearing before the learned Magistrate, filed a petition for discharge which was rejected by the impugned order dated 20.6.1995 and the accused petitioners were directed to remain present in court for framing of charge and fence this petition under section 482 of the cr. P. C. for quashing the entire prosecution including the said order. 3. It was not disputed that the petitioners are employees of M/s Speed craft Private Ltd. having its factory at Sahay nagar (Phulwari Sharif ). It was also not disputed that the said company manufactures, inter alia, light duty tampers. It was not disputed that one such tamper had been booked on 5.10.1989 for being transported to Kharagpur from Danapur Railway Stallion in an open wagon (KF type Carriage)and two escorts of the company had been allowed to accompany the consignment by the railway. It was also not disputed that loading of the consignment had been done by the said company which had not been supervised by the railway staff and unloading at the destination was to be done by the company itself. Moreover, these facts are apparent from Annexure 1 which is a copy of the railway receipt granted to the company in this regard. 4. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the tamper, being a huge machine, used for laying tracks, spacer buggy and front buggy of the same had to be removed from the main body at the time of laoding the same in the open wagon as there were chances of these two parts getting damaged and hence the same were to be loaded separately in the same open wagon and refitted later on. Referring to Annexure 2 which is a petition dated 30.10.89 addressed to the D. R. M. , Eastern Railway, danapur, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Manager of the said company had sought permission for fixing the Spacer Buggy and front buggy with the tamper. The learned counsel further invited the attention of the court towards the endorsement in the margin of Annexure 2 and pointed out that permission for fixing the said parts with the machine, had been granted on 31.10.89 by A. O. S. T. , Danapur, eastern Railway and after getting permission, the employees of the said company had been there for the said prupose and so there was no intention on their part to remove any railway property. In this connection, the learned counsel for the State referred to the complaint (Annexure 4) filed before ther Court of Railway Magistrate and point out that the permission granted by the a. O. S. T. Danapur (Assistant Operating Superintendent, Trafiic Danapur, eastern Railway) for fixing the said parts with the machine loaded in open wagon, was illegal. This contention of the iearned counsel for the State was controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by submitting that even if it is considered for the sake of argument that A. O. S. T. Danapur had no authority to grant such a permission, that can, at best be only a technical breach of internal railway regulation but the bonafide of the company is clearly established by the fact that the Manager of the company filed a petition (Annexure 2) before the appropriate authority of the Railway seeking permission to fix the aforesaid parts with the machine and the petitioners had been thereafter getting such permission. 5. The petitioners have brought to record the certified copy of the deposition of the informant as well as of his two companions recorded by the Railway Magistrate before charge. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that none of these witnesses has stated that he saw the petitioners removing any part from the machine in the wagon. Referring to the deposition of RW.1 Tileshwar Kumar, it was further pointed out that he has specifically admitted that the articles seized, were not used by the Railway and were not Railway property. Referring to the deposition of RW.1 Tileshwar Kumar, it was further pointed out that he has specifically admitted that the articles seized, were not used by the Railway and were not Railway property. The said witness has also admitted that the two men of the company were there in the open wagon to look after the machine loaded therein and they had not enquired from them regarding this. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners further referred to the opinion (attached with the record)) of S. K. Ray choudhary, RW. I. Danapur, an expert of the railway, and pointed out that he had found the seized articles as the missing part of the machine loaded in the open wagon. In view of this, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the concerned pettiioners had been there for fitting the missing part in the machine and not for removing any railway property. It was further contended that though the tamper was booked for being transported to Kharagpur, it was the property of the company through its escorts/ guards who were admittedly in the open wagon guarding the machine and as such, no offence is made out. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to certain decisions in support of his contention that under the circumstances of this case, no offence can be said to have been made out. The first decision referred to by the learned counsel was the decision of the supreme court in the case of Hari Sao and anr. vs. The state of Bihar reported in A. I. R.1970 S. C.843. In the said case the consignor had induced the Station master to make out railway receipt stating that the consignment was said to contain 251 bags of chillies with letters L/u endorsed meaning that responsibility for loading and unloading vested with the consignor. At the destination, the wagon was found to contain only 197 bags of chaff. It was held by the Supreme Court that charge of cheating the Station Master could not be established as railway did not incur any additional liability by the false representation that consigment contained 251 bags and the issuing of railway receipt, therefore, was not likely to cause any damage or harm to the railways. It was held by the Supreme Court that charge of cheating the Station Master could not be established as railway did not incur any additional liability by the false representation that consigment contained 251 bags and the issuing of railway receipt, therefore, was not likely to cause any damage or harm to the railways. In view of this decision of the supreme Court, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that undisputedly the machine had been. loaded in the open wagon by the company and unloading at the destination was to be done by the company and two guards of the company were there in the open wagon and under the circumstances even if it is accepted for argument sake that the seized parts of the machine had been removed by the petitioner, the railway was not going to be put to any damage thereby. It was further contended by the learned counsel that under the circumstances, the materials on record do not give any indication of criminal intent on the part of any of the petitioners and that being so, their entire prosecution is fit to be quashed. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to a decision of this court in the case of Kamakhaya narayan Singh vs. Ram Lakhan Singh and anr. reported in 1970 B. LJ. R. page 571. 7. After considering the materials on record and above contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the materials on record give no indication of criminal intent on the part of the petitioners and their prosecution will be an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, this Cr. Misc. case is allowed and the entire prosecution of the petitioners including the order dated 20.6.1995 passed in the said R. P. F. Case No.93 of 1989 is hereby quashed.