JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — This Criminal Revision is filed chal¬lenging the order of the learned J.M.F.C. Bhubaneswar in 2 (c) C.C. No. 384 of 1991 convicting the petitioner under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (in short ‘R.P. (U.P.) Act’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous impris¬onment for a period of one year. The said order was confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1992. 2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the short facts of the case are that one Balaram Behera (P.W.1) the S.I. of C.I.B.,R.P.F. Khurda along with two constables and one Head Constable (P.Ws.2, 3 and 4) while performing secret watch duty on the eastern side of Mancheswar Railway workshop in the night of 14.5.1991 found a cycle being kept near a hole in the boundary wall of the said Railway workshop. They entered inside the Rail¬way workshop through that hole and found that three persons were advancing towards the Northern side with head loads of articles. Those persons on seeing the R.P.F. personnel threw the bags and started running hither and thither. P.Ws.1 to 4 chased them and P.W.1 and one P. Papa Rao (who has not been examined) caught hold of the petitioner but the other two persons escaped. The peti¬tioner disclosed his name and on being interrogated by P.W.1 con¬fessed that he was carrying the railway properties along with the other two accused persons, namely, Prafulla Kumar Parida and Pitabas Parida and they threw the same at the spot and ran away. P.W.1 brought the accused-petitioner to the spot where the properties were thrown, seized the properties which were kept in three gunny bags under a seizure list (Ext.1) prepared at the spot which was not signed by the petitioner. P.W.1 recorded the statement of the petitioner (Ext.2) and arrested him and produced him along with the seized properties and the connected documents before the Inspector of R.P.F. Mancheswar (P.W.5) on 15.5.91 at 4 A.M P.W.5 registered a case under Section 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act and produced the accused-petitioner along with the prosecu¬tion report. Subsequently, the other two accused persons who had escaped, surrendered in Court and all the three accused persons faced their trial for alleged possession of Railway properties. 3. Subsequently, the other two accused persons who had escaped, surrendered in Court and all the three accused persons faced their trial for alleged possession of Railway properties. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents and the materials seized as M.Os. 4. The plea of the accused persons was compete denial. In support of their case, they examined 3 witnesses. 5. Of the witnesses examined by prosecution, P.W.1 was the S.I. of R.P.F. Khurda, P.Ws.3 and 4 were R.P.F. Constable, P.W.2 was the Dy. Superintendent of S.E.Railway and P.W.5 was the Investigating Officer. 6. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the vehicle, both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the peti¬tioner was guilty of the offence under Section 3 (a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act and convicted him thereunder. However, the learned Magistrate found the other two accused persons to guilty of the charges levelled and acquitted them. The learned Magistrate, as stated earlier, sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 48 of the 1992 which was disposed of by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. The lower appellate Court also vividly scrutinised all the evidence and by a well discussed judgment, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish pos¬session of railway property by the petitioner and was pleased to confirm the order of conviction and sentence imposed and dis¬missed the appeal. The said concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence are impugned in this revision as stated earlier. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously and forcefully submitted that as no property was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, he should not be punished under Section 3(a) of the Act. It is further submitted that out of the three accused persons, admittedly two have been acquitted and on the basis of the same evidence the conviction of the petitioner is not justified. According to the learned counsel for the peti¬tioner the confessional statement and the signature on the sei¬zure list by the petitioner were obtained by using force and cannot be utilised against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the peti¬tioner the confessional statement and the signature on the sei¬zure list by the petitioner were obtained by using force and cannot be utilised against the petitioner. It is also submitted that P.Pappa Rao, one of the police personnel who apprehended the accused, was not examined and thus the material evidence was suppressed from the Court. It is argued that there is no mark to identify the property as railway property. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Courts below lost sight of the aforesaid facts and the judgments are liable to set aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State strenuously took me through the entire oral evidence and submit¬ted that the evidence of P.W.2 the Dy. Superintendent of S.E. Railway clearly reveals that all the properties seized belonged to Railway Department. It is further contended that according to the prosecution case three accused persons were found carrying head-loads of railway property and when they were chased, they threw the gunny bags and ran away. Out of the three, the R.P.F. staff were able to apprehend the petitioner whereas the other two managed to escape. Soon thereafter, the petitioner was brought to the spot where the materials were thrown and as would be evident from Ext.2 and oral evidence of R.P.F. Staff, the accused-peti¬tioner confessed his guilt. P.W.5 has clearly identified the property to be Railway property. Through P.W.5 was cross-examined at length. nothing could be elicited to contradict his statement. P.W.5 is the Dy. Superintendent of Railway and it is presumed that he had special knowledge to identify the property belonging to the Railway Department. Mr. Pradhan strenuously submitted that though the other two accused persons could not have been acquit¬ted because there was no evidence except the co-accused state¬ment, the learned Court below acquitted them. But then acquittal of two persons who escaped from the spot cannot be a ground for acquittal of the petitioner, who was caught red-handed and added to it, had confessed about the guilt vide Ext.2. It is also submitted that the petitioner had signed the seizure list, though according to the petitioner he had done so being forced by the R.P.F. staff. Signature of the petitioner on the seizure list as well as on the confessional statement have been marked without objection in Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner had signed the seizure list, though according to the petitioner he had done so being forced by the R.P.F. staff. Signature of the petitioner on the seizure list as well as on the confessional statement have been marked without objection in Court. The learned counsel for the State further submits that on the meanwhile P. Pappa Rao, who was the Head Con¬stable and member of the party which apprehended the petitioner, has retired and has gone to his own State and it was not possible to examine him. According to Mr. Pradhan, the prosecution has examined all witnesses and the involvement of the petitioner is proved from the cogent evidence available. In other words, quali¬ty of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Court and not the quantity of evidence. According to Mr. Pradhan, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 clearly established the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. It is also exphatically submitted that the petitioner being caught red-handed at the spot, there was no doubt regarding his involvement in the crime. 9. After going through the entire evidence once again and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by both trial and appellate Courts. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the records. 10. The oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 clearly establishes the allegations made against the petitioner. The petitioner was caught red-handed while committing the crime. P.W.5 as a respon¬sible Officer of the Railways has identified the stolen materials to be the Railway properties. Thus, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, but then in the meanwhile more than 11 years have elapsed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, I feel awarding sentence of three months R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month would met the ends of justice and I order accordingly. 11. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the Crimi¬nal Revision is allowed in part. Crl. Rev. allowed in part.