P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned additional Public Prosecutor and Sri Mohd. Irfan appearing on behalf of accused. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 1469 of 1997 is preferred by the State as against the judgment dated 21-4-1995 in C. C. No. 202 of 1992 on the file of XIII Metropolitan magistrate for Railways at Secunderabad. ( 3 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 1470 of 1997 is preferred by the Inspector, RPF, secunderabad, aggrieved by the awarding of sentence of fine only in contravention of section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act, 1966, (hereinafter for short referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience ). ( 4 ) THE Inspector of RPF, secunderabad filed a complaint against the accused 1 to 3 under Section 3 (a) of the act stating that on 27-3-1992 he obtained search warrant to search the premises of M/s. Ganga Steels Pvt. Ltd. , arrayed as A3. The version of the prosecution is that the complainant and his staff searched the factory in the presence of Al and seized 159 Brake Blocks-9 Nos. and big and small pieces 55 Nos. CST-9 plates full, 204 ACB plates. On the backside of the furnace some more Railway properties were available i. e. , 51 Nos. Brake Blocks, 89 ACB plates, 1 Rail Base, 1 Wagon Buffer, 1 CBC knuckle total value of Rs. 35,000/ -. On 10-4-1992 the complainant arrested a2, the Director of M/s. Ganga Steels and recorded his statement. Then the complainant arrested A1 and seized the property under a cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. ( 5 ) PROSECUTION examined PWs. 1 to 8 and Exs. Pl to P21 and MOs. 1 to 9 were marked. ( 6 ) THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record ultimately found Al guilty for the offence under Section 3 (a) of the Act, convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer eight months rigorous imprisonment. But, however, A2 and A3 were acquitted. Aggrieved by the same, the aforesaid appeals have been preferred. ( 7 ) AT the outset, it may be stated that al had not preferred any appeal as against the imposition of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default eight months rigorous imprisonment. 5,000/-, in default to suffer eight months rigorous imprisonment. But, however, A2 and A3 were acquitted. Aggrieved by the same, the aforesaid appeals have been preferred. ( 7 ) AT the outset, it may be stated that al had not preferred any appeal as against the imposition of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default eight months rigorous imprisonment. ( 8 ) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the provisions of the Act in general and Section 3 (a) of the Act in particular and would submit that the language is imperative and the minimum punishment to be imposed, that too, after recording special reasons, would be one year and at any rate the same cannot be less than that. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would submit that even otherwise no reasons, much less, special reasons had been recorded by the learned Metropolitan magistrate, why the learned Magistrate was imposing only fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight months as against A1. The learned counsel would further submit that when the material available on record satisfies the ingredients of Section 3 (a) of the Act, automatically A2, the Director of M/s. Ganga steels also is liable to be punished. Inasmuch as there cannot be any controversy that though at the time of seizure A1 alone was present, the property was seized from the premises of the company as such. ( 9 ) PER contra, Sri Mohd. Irfan, learned counsel representing the accused with all vehemence had contended that A3 is m/s. Ganga Steels Private Limited and shown as represented by A2 and as per the findings recorded, it is doubtful whether a2 was the Director, incharge of the affairs of the company at the relevant point of time. Learned Counsel also would maintain that company, as such, cannot be convicted and punishment of imprisonment as such cannot be inflicted as against the company. Even otherwise, learned Counsel would maintain that clear finding had been recorded and as far as A2 is concerned, he had no knowledge about the said alleged keeping of the railway material and hence, the requisite mens rea is absent and ingredients of Section 3 (a) of the Act are not satisfied so far as it relates to A2 and a3. The Counsel also would submit that convincing reasons had been recorded by the learned Magistrate and ultimately arrived at the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances and also taking the value of the property, A1 was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default eight months rigorous imprisonment and hence, the same need not be disturbed, while exercising the appellate powers by this Court. ( 10 ) P. W. 4 and P. W. 5, no doubt identified the property as railway property. P. W1, the Inspector of R. P. F. , Kazipet stated that on credible information received about the stolen railway property in the premises of Ganga Steels Private Limited, he approached the Court and obtained search warrant-Ex. A1 and on the same day along with his staff went to the said premises at about 13-00 hours and in the presence of two mediators showed the search warrant Ex. P1 to A1, who was present at that time in the premises and after observing formalities required under law, conducted search and seizure of 159 Brake blocks of different sizes, 9 CST-9 plates in full length, 55 big and small sizes of CST-9 plate pieces, 204 AC plates, one rail base, one railway wagon buffer and wagon buckle, which are M. Os. l to 9 and arrested A1 under Ex. P2-Panchanama as he failed to produce any valid document to be in possession of the said properties. This witness also deposed that he prepared the search list-Ex. P3 and served the same on a1 under his acknowledgement and he had recorded the confessional statement of a1 under Ex. P5, wherein he admitted the guilt. Then P. W. I handed over the record, the accused along with property and his special report Ex. P8 to the ASIPF, secunderabad, for further enquiry. ( 11 ) P. W. 2 deposed that on 28-3-1992 he sent A1 to the Court for remand. On 31-3-1992, he obtained the ownership particulars of the said concern from the assistant Registrar of Company, Hyderabad under Ex. A10. On 10-4-1992 he arrested a2 at his post and recorded his statement ex. P14 and also sent him to the Court for remand. This witness also deposed that the seized property was got examined by the experts and obtained certificates Exs. P18 and P19 to the effect that the said items are belonging to the railways. A10. On 10-4-1992 he arrested a2 at his post and recorded his statement ex. P14 and also sent him to the Court for remand. This witness also deposed that the seized property was got examined by the experts and obtained certificates Exs. P18 and P19 to the effect that the said items are belonging to the railways. ( 12 ) P. W. 3 is the mediator, who was treated hostile. P. W. 4 is the Chief Train examiner. P. Ws. 4 and 5 had identified these properties as railway properties. P. W. 6 is the Village Administrative Officer, who issued certificate Ex. P20 stating that the land in Survey Nos. 346, 349-A and 350 of Muppireddupally belongs to M/s. Ganga steels. P. W. 7 is the Assistant Registrar of companies, who deposed that the said Ganga steels Company is registered under the companies Act on 7-4-1986 and Directors are A2 and others as per the records, Exs. P10 to P13. P. W. 8 is the Sub-Registrar, who deposed that the said Ganga Steel Company is in that survey numbers and it is of an extent of Ac. 2. 6 kuntas and Ex. P21 is the true copy of the said record. ( 13 ) ON the basis of this material, the learned Magistrate, after recording the findings, recorded acquittal as far as A2 and a3 are concerned, but convicted and sentenced A1 to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight months. ( 14 ) SECTION 3 of the Act deals with penalty for unlawful possession of railway property and the same reads as hereunder: "whoever is found, or is proved to have been, in possession of any railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained shall, unless he proves that the railway property came into his possession lawfully, be punishable. (A) For the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the court such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees. (A) For the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the court such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees. (B) For the second or a subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than two years and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees. ( 15 ) STRONG stress was laid on the language of Section 3 (a) of the Act, which specifies for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees. On the strength of the language, it was urged with all vehemence by the prosecution that inasmuch as imprisonment for a specified period is mandatory or imperative, just imposing fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for eight months as against A1, cannot stand to legal scrutiny. ( 16 ) IN State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath, 1979 Cri. LJ 1193, the Apex court while dealing with the essential requirements of Section 3 of the Act held as under:"the essential requirements of the section therefore are that (i) the property in question should be railway property, (ii) it should reasonably be suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained, and (iii) it should be found or proved that the accused was or had been in possession of that property. It is not in dispute before us (hat the property in question was railway property within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act. It is also not in dispute before us that it was reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. It is not in dispute before us (hat the property in question was railway property within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act. It is also not in dispute before us that it was reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. It is not disputed therefore that two of the three essential requirements of Section 3 were shown to exist at the time when the question of framing the charge came up for consideration. The question, which remained for consideration was whether it could be said that the accused were found or were proved to have been in possession of the railway property. It was therefore permissible for the prosecution to establish, either that the accused were "found" to be in possession of the railway property, or that they were proved "to have been" in possession thereof. As Accused 1,2,5 and the absconding accused were not "found" in possession of the railway property, it was permissible for the prosecution to allege and prove that they had been in possession of that property. " ( 17 ) ON the material available on record, there cannot be any controversy that this railway property was seized from the premises of A3 at the relevant point of time in the presence of A1. No doubt, p. W. 3 mediator had turned hostile. The evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5 is available to the effect that these properties are railway properties and they are not available in the other open market. Learned Magistrate had recorded reasons in detail and ultimately arrived at a conclusion that A1 is liable to be convicted and sentenced, but imposed fine, in default rigorous imprisonment for eight months. So far it relates to A2 and A3, a2 K. Suhan Rao, S/o. K. V. Rajeswar Rao, is just shown to be the Director of Ganga steels Private Limited, A3 is M/s. Ganga steels Private Limited, represented by A2. On the strength of the material available on record and on appreciation of the confessional statement-Ex. P. 14 and also the other documents Exs. On the strength of the material available on record and on appreciation of the confessional statement-Ex. P. 14 and also the other documents Exs. P10, P13 and P16 a finding was recorded by the learned magistrate that a doubt is created whether a1 was the Managing Director or one rajeswar or some other Director was incharge of the affairs of the company at the relevant point of the time, when the seizure of the property had taken place from the company. It is needless to say that A3 being a corporate personality, a company, the imprisonment as such cannot be imposed as against A3 and it should be represented by only a human agency and the said human agency should be prosecuted. ( 18 ) IN the light of the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate, which would throw a genuine bona fide doubt, the acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate so far as it relates to A2 and A3 is concerned, is hereby confirmed in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned magistrate. ( 19 ) THE next question, which may have to be considered is whether the imposition of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default eight months rigorous imprisonment as against Al, while convicting Al, is in accordance with law. Section 3 (a) of the Act specifies that for the first offence, with the imprisonment for a term, which may extend to five years or with fine, or with both and in the absence of any special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than Rs. 1,000/ -. Learned Magistrate had recorded certain reasons and observed that considering all the aspects, it is held that Al alone did this act and was in possession of the said materials unauthorisedly at the time of seizure. The Learned Magistrate also observed that considering the said aspect and value of the property involved in this case, A1 is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default eight months rigorous imprisonment. These reasons recorded definitely cannot be said to be special or adequate reasons. The Learned Magistrate also observed that considering the said aspect and value of the property involved in this case, A1 is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default eight months rigorous imprisonment. These reasons recorded definitely cannot be said to be special or adequate reasons. ( 20 ) IN the light of the language employed under Section 13 (a) of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence imposed as against A1, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to be modified to the minimum sentence of imprisonment, which is imperative i. e. , one year and as far as the fine amount imposed by the learned Magistrate Rs. 5,000/- is concerned, the same is hereby confirmed, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight (8) months. ( 21 ) HOWEVER, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the fine amount had already been paid. Hence, in the facts and circumstances and the views expressed by this Court supra, the conviction and sentence imposed as against A1 are hereby modified and Al shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and so far as it relates to imposition of fine of rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) is concerned, in default eight (8) months rigorous imprisonment as imposed by learned Magistrate, is hereby confirmed. It is needless to say that Al shall surrender to serve the rest of the sentence and A1 also is entitled to set off, if any, to be given in this regard. ( 22 ) ACCORDINGLY the Criminal Appeal no. 1469 is dismissed and the Criminal appeal No. 1470 is partly allowed.