JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment dated 20.3.1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. 2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that Naik Ami Lal had made a complaint to the Police that on 5.1.1989 he along with Constable Kapoor Singh and Suresh Kumar Yadav was an duty at Basai Dhankot Station for the protection of the railway property and that at about 6.00 a.m. one light engine was found coming from Delhi side and all of a sudden it stopped at Gate No. 28-B, whereupon they got suspicious and when they went towards Gate N. 28-B, they saw accused Kishan resident of Dhankot and known to him previously, taking out bori from the engine and loading it on a rickshaw thela. It as alleged that as soon as they all three proceeded ahead to catch hold of him, in the meanwhile gate man Dunger Singh also arrived there and said accused Kishan on seeing them ran away from there leaving the three boris on the thela. It was alleged that when they examined the boris each bori was found containing 50 kg of kacha koyla, which was railway property. It was alleged that on the light engine No. 4489 YG was written and accused Devinder Pal driver was on duty on the said engine and he was known to him previously. It was alleged that on the handle of the rickshaw thela "(Avon)" was embosed and on the frame No. 10648170 was written. It was alleged that in the meanwhile the police arrived on the spot and that action be taken. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint made by Naik Ami Lal, FIR was registered in the Police Station. The case was investigated by the police and the coal and the rickshaw thela were taken into possession. The accused were arrested in this case. After completion of the investigation a complaint was filed by the police in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The accused were charged for the offence under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, to which charges, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, prosecution produced its evidence. The accused were arrested in this case. After completion of the investigation a complaint was filed by the police in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The accused were charged for the offence under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, to which charges, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, prosecution produced its evidence. Thereafter, statements of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded in which they denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case. However, the accused did not produce any evidence in their defence. 4. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, acquitted the accused of the charge framed against them, vide judgment dated 20.3.1992. Aggrieved against the same, the State of Haryana filed the present appeal against the acquittal of the accused- respondents. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted before me that the learned Magistrate had erred in law in acquitting the accused-respondents in this case. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused-respondents on the ground that there was no evidence on record to show that the coal, which was recovered was used in railway engine and was railway property. It was submitted that the statement of Sajan Singh-PW was sufficient to prove that the coal, which was recovered was used in railway engines and was the railway property. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted before me that two of the respondents, namely, Om Parkash and Pitamber Dutt were not even named in the complaint made by Naik Ami Lal-PW. It was further submitted that in fact there was no proof on the record to show that the alleged coal was railway property. It was further submitted that the fact that goods in question were railway property was not put to the accused in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and the report of Sajan Singh-PW was not put to the accused in their statements. Reliance was placed on Vol. III 1975 Chandigarh Law Reporter 408, Piara Singh v. The State of Punjab. 7. Reliance was placed on Vol. III 1975 Chandigarh Law Reporter 408, Piara Singh v. The State of Punjab. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and pursuing the record, in my opinion, there is no force in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, a person could be found guilty only if it was proved that he was in possession of any railway property, reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. Railway property has been defined under Section 2(d) of the aforesaid Act, to include any goods, money or valuable security or animal belonging to or in the charge or possession of a railway administration. In the present case, from the evidence led by the prosecution, it could not be said that the recovered property was proved to be railway property. PW-1 Sajan Singh SLI deposed that he had investigated the goods lying the three tat boris and had found the same to be "B-grade steam coal" and that the same was railway property and had prepared his report, which was Exhibit PW/A. He stated that the coal was of the railways. During cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he stated the he had taken training from Dhanbad but had not got any certificate with him to prove the same. He stated that the coal was of ordinary quality and that the same was not available in the market. He stated that they had not lodged any report about the theft or shortage. He denied the suggestion that his report was false. PW-2 Dunger Singh deposed that he was present on duty when three constables of R.P.F. had come to him and had inquired from him as to whether an engine had stopped, whereupon he told that the engine had not stopped but had gone there from him as to whether an engine had stopped, whereupon he told that the engine had not stopped but had gone there from at a slow speed. He stated that the police officials had told him that coal was lying there and he had taken the same into possession and the same was handed over to Mishraji. He stated that he had not seen anyone stealing the coat but the R.P.F. people were saying that accused-Kishan was involved. He stated that the police officials had told him that coal was lying there and he had taken the same into possession and the same was handed over to Mishraji. He stated that he had not seen anyone stealing the coat but the R.P.F. people were saying that accused-Kishan was involved. He was declared hostile by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and was cross-examined by him. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that in his presence, coal was stolen. He stated that he did not know the name of the engine driver. During cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he stated that he had not seen anyone committing theft of coal. PW-3 Naik Ami Lal (complainant) deposed that he was on duty on 5.1.1989 along with Kapoor Singh and Slash Kumar and that in the morning at 6.00 a.m. he had seen one light engine coming from Gurgaon side at Gate No. 28-B at a slow speed that it was driven by driver Devender, whereas firemen were Om Parkash and Pitamber Dutt and that he had identified them inside of the engine. He stated that the engine driver had stopped the engine at Gate No. 28-B and they saw a person carrying a tat bori and going towards north side and on coming near him a rikshaw thela was found standing on which two boris of coal were already lying there and that person came near the thela and on seeing them coming, the said person ran away from there after throwing the bori on the thela. He stated that the said person was accused Kishan, present in the Court, who was produced by him. He stated that efforts were made to apprehend him but they failed. He stated that thereupon Dunger Singh came at the spot and the coal was taken into possession and thereafter report Exhibit P3/A was prepared and in the meanwhile, the police came to the spot and they took the boris into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit-P3/B. PW-4 Constable Kapoor Singh and PW-5 Constable Slash Kumar also made similar statements in Court. However, during cross-examination, PW-5 Slash Kumar Constable deposed that he could not give the grade of the coal and stated that similar coal was commonly available. 8. However, during cross-examination, PW-5 Slash Kumar Constable deposed that he could not give the grade of the coal and stated that similar coal was commonly available. 8. When the statements of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded, it was only put to them that three bags of coal were found in possession of the accused and that various witnesses had appeared in the Court. However, neither the statement of PW-Sajan Singh SLI was put to the acccused-respondents nor the report Exhibit PW-1/A submitted by this witness was put to the accused in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code Thus, the material evidence that the property which was recovered was railway property was not put to the accused-respondents in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code 9. From a persual of the statements of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code referred to above, in my opinion, it would be clear that the fact that the property in question was a railway property was not put to the accused. In this view of the matter, the statement of PW-1 Sajan Singh, could not be taken into consideration, nor Exhibit PW-1/A prepared by him could be taken against the accused, considering that the same was not put to the accused in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code 10. Besides the above, there is another infirmity in this case. PW-1 Sajan Singh, who had allegedly examined the coal and had given his report Exhibit PW-1/A, is not proved to be an expert to give opinion regarding the quality of coal. He had only stated that he had taken training from Dhanbad. However, no proof was produced by him in this regard. There is no other proof on the record to show that he was trained in this regard or was in expert to give evidence regarding the quality of coal. Furthermore, he himself had stated during cross-examination that the coal was of ordinary quality. PW-5 Slash Kumar Constable had also stated that the coal in question was commonly available. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, in the absence of any further evidence to prove that the coal recovered was railway property, the accused could not be held guilty in this case. PW-5 Slash Kumar Constable had also stated that the coal in question was commonly available. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, in the absence of any further evidence to prove that the coal recovered was railway property, the accused could not be held guilty in this case. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the law laid down by this Court in the case of Piara Singh v. The State of Punjab (supra). In view of the above, it would be clear that the leaned Magistrate had rightly acquitted the accused of the charge framed against them (though on a different ground). Accordingly, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.