P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE Sub-Inspector, r. P. F. , Lallaguda Workshop represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, preferred this criminal appeal as against the respondents herein in view of the acquittal recorded by the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate for railways at Secunderabad by his judgment dated 1st day of May, 1997 in C. C. No. 264 of 1995 finding that A-1, A-2, A-4, A-6 and a-7 are not guilty of the offence under section 3 (a) of Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act, 1966 hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience. No doubt, A5 was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. But, however, no separate appeal was preferred praying for enhancement of sentence as against A-5. The case against A-3, inasmuch as he pleaded guilty, was disposed of on 13-12-1995 in c. C. No. l46 of 1995. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 14-6-1995, while complainant along with his Inspector and staff had been on rounds, apprehended A-1 to A-4 while they were in possession of alluminium axle box covers with railway marks, outside the boundary wall of Workshop, Lallaguda on the northeastern side road over the bridge. It is the version of the prosecution that on enquiry, a-l to A-4 stated that they had committed theft of the said property from the workshop of Lallaguda and they were taking the same for disposal, and the accused also stated that they along with A-7 committed similar offences on prior occasions and disposed of the same to A-5 and A-6 through a-3. It is needless to say that the case was separated on admission of guilt made by A-3, and the same was disposed of on 13-12-1995 in C. C. No. 146 of 1995. The complainant arrested A-l to A-4 and seized four axle box covers under the cover of an occurrence report Ex. P-1 and the complainant brought A-1 to A-4 to the R. P. F post, Lallaguda and registered a case in cr. No. 3 of 1995 under Section 3 (a) of the act and recorded the statements of A-l to a-4 and it is stated that they had admitted their guilt. P-1 and the complainant brought A-1 to A-4 to the R. P. F post, Lallaguda and registered a case in cr. No. 3 of 1995 under Section 3 (a) of the act and recorded the statements of A-l to a-4 and it is stated that they had admitted their guilt. On 14-6-1995, at about 12-20 hours the complainant along with Inspector, staff and mediators as lead by A-3, went to the scrap shop of A-5 at H. No. 12-10-409/ 22, Namalagundu, Secunderabad, and A-3 identified A-5 as the person to whom he sold alluminium plates stolen on prior occasions to an extent of 70 Kgs at the rate of Rs. 30/- per kg. On enquiry, A-5 also admitted the transactions and produced four axle box covers available in the shop and the same were seized by the complainant under the cover of panchanama in the presence of two panch witnesses. A-5 was arrested and later his statement was also recorded. On the same day, at 15. 15 hours, as lead and shown by A-3, the complainant along with the Inspector, staff and mediators went to the scrap shop of A-6 at Annapurna Nagar Colony, Mallapur bearing H. No. 5-1-84/3 in plot No. 64 and a-3 identified A-6 as the person to whom he sold alluminium plates weighing about 14 kgs at the rate of Rs. 30/- per kg. and on enquiry, A-6 also admitted the purchase of axle box covers and produced two axle box covers and the same were seized by the complainant under a cover of panchanama in the presence of two mediators and A-6 was arrested and his statement was also recorded. The complainant examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, collected reliable information and filed the final report. The case was taken on file and the same was tried. ( 3 ) AS already referred to supra, in view of the admission of guilt, the case against A-3 was disposed on 13-12-1995 in c. C. No. 146 of 1995. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 8 was recorded and also Exs. P-1 to P-21 and M. Os. 1 to 6 were marked. The learned magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, arrived at a conclusion that A-1, A-2, A-4 A-6 and A-7 are not guilty of the said offence but, however, convicted A-5 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. P-1 to P-21 and M. Os. 1 to 6 were marked. The learned magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, arrived at a conclusion that A-1, A-2, A-4 A-6 and A-7 are not guilty of the said offence but, however, convicted A-5 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor would contend that the acquittal of A-6, who stands on the same footing just like A-5 definitely cannot be sustained and the said acquittal was recorded on the strength of the evidence of PW-4. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW-1 and pw-7 and Exs. P-2 to P-5, P7, P-9 and P-10, the confessional statements and would contend that the statements are admissible in evidence inasmuch as Officer of R. P. F. , making enquiry under Section 3 (a) of the act, is not a Police Officer. The learned additional Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on Balakishan v. State of maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 379 . The learned additional Public Prosecutor also would contend that inasmuch as the occurrence report Ex. P1 is available, the absence of a specific report from railways would not alter the situation in any way and reliance was placed on Public Prosecutor (A. P.) v. Shaik galib, 1975 (1) An. WR 287, in this regard. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, Sri Praveen kumar, learned Counsel representing the respondents would contend that there is no panchanama in relation to A-1 to A-4. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the evidence of PW-4 is clear and it is doubtful whether the property was seized from the possession of the house of A-6. Since PW-4 specifically deposed that A-6 is the brother of her husband and no business is being transacted and the said house belongs to her and not to A-6 and, hence, viewed from any angle, the findings need not be disturbed. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision relied in Public prosecutor (A. P.) v. Shaik Galib (supra), the self-same judgment and would contend that the burden had not been discharged by the prosecution and, hence, the acquittal recorded as against the other accused, cannot be disturbed. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision relied in Public prosecutor (A. P.) v. Shaik Galib (supra), the self-same judgment and would contend that the burden had not been discharged by the prosecution and, hence, the acquittal recorded as against the other accused, cannot be disturbed. ( 6 ) THE factual matrix already had been narrated supra, PW-1 is the Sub-Inspector of R. P. F. , the complainant and the enquiry Officer and PW-7 is the Inspector of R. P. F. , who had accompanied PW-1 at the time of apprehension of accused and seizure of M. Os. 1 to 6 and no doubt, the evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by PW-7. PW-2 is the railway employee who acted as a panch witness at the time of seizure of m. Os. 5 to 6 from A-5 and A-6. PW-3 is the depot Stores Superintendent, who examined the properties M. Os. 1 to 6 and issued ex. P14 certificate certifying that the property is of railways. PW-4 is the owner of the house and she had deposed that A-6 is her brother-in-law and the said house belongs to her and no business is being transacted at her house. PW-5 is the owner of A-5 s house and he speaks that A-5 is the tenant paying a rent of Rs. 400/- per month. PW-6 is the Municipal Commissioner of Kapra, who issued Ex. P-17 to the effect that no licence was issued to A-6 to do scrap business. No doubt, certain submissions were made on the strength of evidence of PW-6 that the evidence of PW-4 cannot be believed and hence, A-5 and A-6 stand on the same footing and in the light of the conviction and imposition of fine as against A-5, the recording of acquittal of A-6 cannot be sustained. PW-8 is the Assistant Assessor and Collector, M. C. H, who issued Ex. P-18 certificate. The reasons in detail had been recorded by the learned Magistrate commencing from Paragraphs 25 to 50 and ultimately came to conclusion that the ingredients of Section 3 (a) of the Act had not been satisfied. PW-8 is the Assistant Assessor and Collector, M. C. H, who issued Ex. P-18 certificate. The reasons in detail had been recorded by the learned Magistrate commencing from Paragraphs 25 to 50 and ultimately came to conclusion that the ingredients of Section 3 (a) of the Act had not been satisfied. In Public Prosecutor (A. P.) v. Shaik Galib (supra) it was held that"what has to be established by the prosecution under Section 3 is that the property seized from the accused is the railway property and that the property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. Unless it is established the property seized from the accused is the railway property and is reasonably suspected to be stolen property, the question of punishing the accused person under Section 3 does not arise. Once it is established that it is the railway property and it is reasonably suspected to have been stolen, the burden shifts upon the accused to show that he came into lawful possession of the same. So far as A-2 is concerned, the evidence on record establishes that the property, which was recovered from the lorry hired by him, is the railway property and, in the absence of his explanation as to how he came into possession, it must be held that he came into possession of the property by unlawful means. The fact that no report of theft was made from the railway yard is not a ground for holding that A-2 came into possession of the property by lawful means". ( 7 ) IN Balakrishna s case (supra) while dealing with the aspect whether officer of rpf making an inquiry in respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act, is a police Officer or not so as to attract under section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the apex Court held that"the primary test for determining whether an officer is a Police Officer is: Whether the officer concerned under the Special Act, has been invested with all the powers exercisable by an officer-in-charge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure code, qua investigation of offences under that Act, including the power to initiate prosecution by submitting a report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Cr. P. Code of 1898. P. Code of 1898. In order to bring him within the purview of a "police Officer for the purpose of Section 25, Evidence Act, it is not enough to show that he exercises some or even many of the powers of a Police Officer conducting an investigation under the Code. From the comparative study of the relevant provisions of the 1966 Act and the Code, it is abundantly clear that an officer of the RPF making an inquiry under Section 8 (1) of the 1966 Act does not possess several important attributes of an officer-in-charge of a Police station conducting an investigation under chapter XIV of the Code. The character of the inquiry is different from that of an investigation under the Code. The official status and powers of an officer of the Force in the matter of inquiry under the 1966 Act differ in material aspects from those of a police Officer conducting an investigation under the Code. Particularly, he has no power to initiate prosecution by filing a charge-sheet before the Magistrate concerned under section 173 of the Code, which has been held to be the clinching attribute of an investigating police Officer . Therefore, any confessional or incriminating statement recorded by him in the course of an inquiry under Section 8 (1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be excluded from evidence under the said section". ( 8 ) IT is no doubt true that submissions at length were made on the strength of the material available on record. As far as A-1 to A-4 are concerned, there is no panchanama in relation to the said accused. No doubt, ex. P-1 is the occurrence report and much reliance was placed only on the confessional statements. The confessional statements also would not inspire the confidence of the Court. The reasons in detail had been recorded by the learned magistrate in relation to this aspect of the matter. Apart from this aspect, the evidence of PW-4 is clear and categorical and in the light of the evidence of PW-4 to the effect that the house wherefrom the alleged seizure had taken place, the said house belongs to her. A-6 has nothing to do with the said house and no business is being transacted. The evidence of PW-6, municipal Commissioner, Kapra who issued ex. P-17 certificate may not be of a serious consequence. A-6 has nothing to do with the said house and no business is being transacted. The evidence of PW-6, municipal Commissioner, Kapra who issued ex. P-17 certificate may not be of a serious consequence. At any rate, in the light of the evidence of PW-4, when benefit of doubt was given to A-6 by the learned Magistrate after recording the reasons in detail at paragraphs 41 and 42, this Court does not see any reason to disturb such findings recorded by the learned Magistrate. It is pertinent to note that so far as it relates to A-5, no separate appeal had been preferred by the prosecution praying for enhancement of sentence, as such, and no doubt, a faint attempt was made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitting that by exercising suo motu powers, such enhancement can be awarded though, separate appeal had not been preferred. However, at Paragraph 55, it was recorded that A-5 represented that he is a T. B. patient and having four children and pleaded mercy and in that view of the matter, a lenient view was taken by the learned Magistrate. ( 9 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances, this appeal is devoid of merits and, accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed.