B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 5-1-2001 passed in Crl. A. No. 387 of 2000 on the file of I Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/ a-1 for the offence under Section 3 (a) of R. P. (U. P) Act (for short Act) passed in C. C. 191 of 1995 on the file of XII th the Metropolitan magistrate for Railways at Secunderabad. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is as follows: a-7 P. Bhaskar, A-8 R. Shiva, and A-9 r. Balu committed theft of railway steel sleepers from Miryalguda railway area and brought the same in a truck bearing No. AAH 9387 driven by A-10 K. Peddules @ peddi Raju, Hyderabad. They unloaded the material at a deserted place and tried to secure a buyer, and since no one came forward to buy the material they abandoned the material at Shastripuram. A-4 Munir alum found the material weighing about 3 tonnes and brought the same to Kishanbagh by a lorry bearing No. ATR 2054 driven by a-5 Md. Ismail. He cut the material into pieces with gas cutter and sold the same to a-3 Syed Ghouse. The petitioner/a-1 Hari maheswari proprietor of Sharing Syndicate, moosapet, Hyderabad purchased the material weighing about 3. 5 tonnes from a-3 Syed Ghouse and stored the material in the premises of Sharing Syndicate, Moosapet, hyderabad. P. W. 1. V. Satyanarayana received credible information on 26-3-95 that the petitioner/a-1 stored the railway property unlawfully. He surprised the business premises of petitioner/a-1 and seized 611 cut pieces (MOI) and two full length of railway steel sleepers (MO2) under the cover of Ex. P-1 panchanama in the presence of p. W. 5 B. S. N. Raju and P. Sudarsan. He got mo. 1 and 2 weighted at Parati Weigh Bridge, hyderabad. The material seized from the possession of petitioner/a-1 weighed 3,250 kgs. P. W. I presented Ex. P-3 report to the Inspector, RPF, Sanathnagar. P. W. 2 k. Srinivasa Rao, SI, RPF, Sanathnagar received Ex. P-3 report and registered a case in Cr. No. 1/95 under the Act. He effected arrest of A-2 and seized Rs. 33,000/- from his possession under the cover of Ex. P-6 panchanama on 30-3-95. P. W. I presented Ex. P-3 report to the Inspector, RPF, Sanathnagar. P. W. 2 k. Srinivasa Rao, SI, RPF, Sanathnagar received Ex. P-3 report and registered a case in Cr. No. 1/95 under the Act. He effected arrest of A-2 and seized Rs. 33,000/- from his possession under the cover of Ex. P-6 panchanama on 30-3-95. He searched the house bearing No. B Class, 272 Charkandi on 1-4-96 at 4. 30 p. m. and seized MO. 3 fish plate and MO. 4 fish plate bolts, MO. 5 steel keys (165) under the cover of Ex. P-10 panchanama and arrested A-3. He effected arrest of A-4 on 2-4-95 and seized lorry bearing No. ATR 2054 on the same day he arrested A-5. P. W. 3 R. P. Singh took up investigation on 6-4-95. He arrested A-7 to A-9 at R. T. C. Bus Complex, nalgonda on 16-4-95 and seized M. Os. "6 to 8 (ACP plates) from their possession under the cover of Ex. P-19 panchanama. He also effected the arrest of A-10 and A-11 who are driver and cleaner of DCM Toyota truck bearing No. AAH 9387, and seized the truck under the cover of Ex. P-21 panchanama. After completing enquiry, P. W. 4 M. Hari Prasad filed complaint before the XIII Metropolitan magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad against A-1 to 12 for the offence punishable under the Act. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C. C. 191 /95. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-48 and M. Os. l to 9. On considering the evidence and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned magistrate found the petitioner/a-1 and a-4 guilty for the offence under Section 3 (a) of the Act and convicted them accordingly while recording acquittal of A-2, 3, 5, to 12. The learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner/a-1 and A-4 to suffer RI for six months each. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner/a-1 filed Crl. A. No. 387/2000 on the file of its Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned First additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by judgment dated 5-1-2001 confirmed the conviction of the petitioner/a-1 for the offence under the Act. Hence, this Criminal revision Case by the petitioner/a-1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner/a-1 filed Crl. A. No. 387/2000 on the file of its Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned First additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by judgment dated 5-1-2001 confirmed the conviction of the petitioner/a-1 for the offence under the Act. Hence, this Criminal revision Case by the petitioner/a-1. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner/ a-1 contends that the courts below failed to note that the evidence of P. Ws. l and 5 is contradictory to the evidence of P. W. 12 and therefore the conviction of the petitioner/ a-1 for the offence under Sec. 3 (a) of the Act is not legal and the same is liable to be set aside. He also contends that the alleged recovery of M. Os. l and 2 from the possession of the petitioner/a-1 is much prior to 1-4-95 on which date the theft of the railway material took place. On the other hand, the learned public Prosecutor submits that the courts below have considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and found the petitioner/a-1 guilty for the offence under the Act and that the same is not liable to be interfeied in this revision. ( 4 ) IN a criminal trial the burden of proving everything essentially to the establishment of the charge against the accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, of course to some statutory exceptions. ( 5 ) IT is settled law that when a conviction is recorded by the Magistrate and is upheld by the first appellate court, re-appreciation of evidence by High Court cannot be done unless there is miscarriage of justice. In State of Kerala v. Putturnana IIIath Jathaveden 1999 crl. L. J. 1443 it has been held that in its revisional jurisdiction the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceeding for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory nature exercised by the High Court for correcting the miscarriage of justice. ( 6 ) THE lower court and the appellate court relied on the evidence of P. Ws. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory nature exercised by the High Court for correcting the miscarriage of justice. ( 6 ) THE lower court and the appellate court relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 5,12 and 14 to find the petitioner/a-1 guilty for the offence under Sec. 3 (a) of the Act. It is the case of the prosecution that M. Os. l and 2 are cut pieces of 69 steel sleepers which are subjected to theft, and the same are seized from the possession of the petitioner/a-1. P. W. 1. S. V. Satyanarayana is Inspector CIB headquarters, Secunderabad. He testifies that he seized 611 steel sleeper cut pieces (MO. l) and two full sizes steel sleepers (MO. 2) from the possession of petitioner/ a-1 on 26-3-95 under the cover of Ex. P-1 panchanama. P. W. 5 B. S. N. Raju is Junior engineer. He also testifies that M. Os. l and 2 are seized from the possession of the petitioner/a-1 on 26-3-95 under the cover of ex. P-1 panchanama. It is the case of the prosecution that M. Os. l and 2 are the cut pieces of 69 steel sleepers which are subjected to theft. P. W. 12 M. P. Ranga Rao is permanent weigh Inspector, Lingampally. He speaks of someone committing theft of 69 steel sleepers. For better appreciation I may refer to the evidence of P. W. 12 in his own words and it is thus:"i have retired while working as permanent Way Inspector. I was working at Lingampally in the year 1995. As P. W. 1. our material will steel sleepers, CST 9 plates wooden sleepers and other material. On 2-4-95 there was a theft of 69 st sleepers on which I gave a message to all concerned. I was called by Inspector, sanathnagar RPF post on 4-4-95 for certification. I went there. I have examined the steel sleepers. The sleepers were in full size at the time of theft. At the time of my examination there 611 cut pieces and two full size sleepers. I gave a certificate that it belongs to Rlys and it is our material. The stocks were lying with us for more than one year. I have seen the material to-day in the Court. In my certificate I have written the Cr. No. l/95 of Sanathnagar. I gave a certificate that it belongs to Rlys and it is our material. The stocks were lying with us for more than one year. I have seen the material to-day in the Court. In my certificate I have written the Cr. No. l/95 of Sanathnagar. The material seen by me in the Court also bears the Cr. No. The pieces I have seen to-day are the pieces cut from the stolen 69 steel sleepers. I have also signed on the slips which were pasted to the material. The pieces are in useful condition Ex. P. 43 is issued by me. The 69 steel sleepers were in useful condition. The material was class III material and as they were in useful condition they are not auctionable. " ( 7 ) IT is crystal clear from the evidence of p. W. 12 that 69 sleepers were very much available on 1-4-95. He admits in cross- examination that he saw 69 steel sleepers on 1-4-95 when he made trolley inspection. He also admits that the materials placed before him for identification do not bear specific marks to show that they belong to lingampally. P. W. 14 is the Vigilance inspector. P. W. 14 speaks of number of sleepers that were subjected to theft. He does not speak anything against the petitioner/ a-1. According to P. W. 12, some persons committed theft of 69 steel sleepers on 2-4-95. His evidence is specific that he saw the sleepers on 1-4-95 when he made trolley inspection. It indicates that some one committed theft of 69 steel sleepers subsequent to 1-4-95. It is the contention of the prosecution that the cut pieces seized from the possession of the petitioner/a-1 are out of 69 steel sleepers that are subjected to theft on 1-4-95. The prosecution version seems to be very absurd as the recovery of m. Os. 1 and 2 are much prior to 1-4-95. P. W. 1. speaks of recovery of M. Os. l and 2 from the possession of A-1 on 26-3-95. When 69 sleepers were intact till 1-4-95, the question of recovering cut pieces of 69 sleepers from the possession of petitioner/a-1 on 26-3-95 does not arise. The trial court placed heavy reliance on the evidence of P. Ws. l, 5,12 and 14 in recording the conviction of the petitioner/a-1 under the Act. When 69 sleepers were intact till 1-4-95, the question of recovering cut pieces of 69 sleepers from the possession of petitioner/a-1 on 26-3-95 does not arise. The trial court placed heavy reliance on the evidence of P. Ws. l, 5,12 and 14 in recording the conviction of the petitioner/a-1 under the Act. It is apposite to refer the relevant portion of the judgment of the trial court and it is thus:"16. But the same yardstick cannot be applied to A-1 and A-4 as far as A-1 is concerned it is the case of the prosecution that 613 pieces of steel sleepers were recovered from the firm of A-1 as deposed by P. W. I. P. W. 5 who is a punch witness to the seizure as supported the case of the prosecution, he was cross-examined at length by the learned Advocate for a-1 but he stood firm certain discrepancies were pointed out in his cross-examination. I have gone through it and hold that they are minor in nature and does not effect the case of the prosecution, relying on the evidence of p. Ws. l and 51 hold that the prosecution as established the seizure of MO. 1 and 2 from the possession of A-1 beyond reasonable doubt. P. W. 12 Sri Ranga Rao, permanent Ways Inspector, deposed that he has examined 611 cut pieces and two full size pieces and issued a certificate stating that it belongs to railways, the witness further deposed that he has seen the property in the court and they are the pieces cut out from the stolen 69 steel sleepers. P. W. 12 also examined at length by the learned Advocate for A-1 but he stood firm in his deposition, and I found his evidence reliable. Relying on the evidence of P. W. 12 I hold that M. Os. 1 and 2 are railway property. 17. As far as the theft of 69 ST sleepers is concerned we have to closely scrutinize the evidence of P. Ws. 12 and 14, P. W. 12 deposed that on 2-4-95 there was a theft 69 ST sleepers from Lingampalli for which he gave a message to all concerned. 1 and 2 are railway property. 17. As far as the theft of 69 ST sleepers is concerned we have to closely scrutinize the evidence of P. Ws. 12 and 14, P. W. 12 deposed that on 2-4-95 there was a theft 69 ST sleepers from Lingampalli for which he gave a message to all concerned. P. W. 14 who has also working at lingampalli as Permanent Way inspector, deposed that on 2-4-95 P. W. 4 along with one accused called him near k. M. No. 161/9-10, where 31 steel sleepers were available and as per records 100 steel sleepers should be there i. e. 69 sleepers were stolen from that heap. P. W. 14 further deposed that in his presence the accused Mr. Muneer told that he has committed theft of steel sleepers from that place, the witness further deposed that he can identified the accused. On the day of his deposition mr. Muneer who is A-4 was not present in the Court, both P. W. 12 and P. W. 14 were cross-examined at length but they stood firm in the deposition. I found their evidence reliable. Relying on the evidence of P. Ws. 12 and 14 I hold that a-4 has committed theft of 69 steel sleepers, from near K. M. No. 161/9-10. " ( 8 ) FROM the above referred paras of the judgment of the trial court, that the trial court missed to note the relevant dates and thereby erred in finding the petitioner/a-1 guilty for the offence under Section 3 (a) of rp (UP) Act. When 69 steel sleepers were subjected to theft on 2-4-95, the alleged recovery of M. Os. l and 2 from the possession of petitioner/a-1 on 26-3-95 could be connected to the stolen property. As on 26-3-95 there was no theft of 69 steel sleepers from Lingampally. ( 9 ) IN the result, this Criminal Revision case is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 3 (a) of R. P. (U. P.) Act.