JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : The judgment dated 23.12.1987 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-J.M.F.C. Rourkela in 2 (C) C.C. No.204 of 1984 acquitting the accused-Respondents of the Charge under Section 3(a) of Railways Properties (Unlawful Pos¬session) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the R.P. Act”) is under challenge by the State in this appeal. 2. Prosecution case is that on 21.8.1984 at about 12.30 P.M., while the R.P.F. Head Constable B.N. Tiwari of Baramunda R.P.F. post (P.W.1) along with Rakhaks G.B.Chatri, R.C. Tiwari, C.N. Singh (P.W.2) was on patrolling duty near Bandamunda reception yard, found a mini truck bearing No.OAO-4585 being driven by the accused S.K. Sinha by name coming from Pokhar bahal, and gave signal to the driver to stop it, but he sped away the truck instead. A while after, the speed of the mini truck was lessoned and one of the miscreants sitting in the said truck jumped down and fled away, while three others including the driver were found present in the truck. In the meantime, the R.P. force surrounded the truck and stopped it. On checking, 11 bag of mustard seeds, some sugar and some railway fittings were found to have been loaded in the truck. The accused persons could not give any reasonable explanation in support of their possession of those materials. So, P.W.1 informed the incident to the O.I.C. of R.P.F. post Bandhamunda (P.W.4) On receiving the information P.W.4 along with S.I. R.P. Bala (P.W.6) and head constable P.B. Rao, visited the spot and found the aforesaid truck standing there. P.W.1 submitted a written report to P.W.4, on whose direc¬tion P.W.6 searched the truck in presence of witnesses and found 11 gunny bags containing 7 quintals of mustard seeds, one gunny bag containing about 45 kgs of sugar and another gunny bag con¬taining 10 kgs of gram, some railway fittings like two pieces of coil springs, one universal coupling bearing ‘IRS’ mark, one adjusting palm and 9 pieces of brake blocks. When asked accused failed to show any authority in support of their possession of those articles and confessed to have obtained the same from accused Naba Kishore Sinha, who jumping down from the truck had run away. So. When asked accused failed to show any authority in support of their possession of those articles and confessed to have obtained the same from accused Naba Kishore Sinha, who jumping down from the truck had run away. So. P.W.6 seized the mustard seeds, sugar grams, rail¬way fittings and the truck and prepared seizure list in respect thereof under Ext.2.He also recorded the confessional statement of accused Rudal shaw, Ramjee Shaw, P. Prakash Rao and Naba Kishore Sinha vide Exts. 4, 5, 6 and 7. On returning to the R.P.F. Post P.W.6 registered the case and enquired into the matter in course of enquiry, he arrested the accused, including accused Abdul Quaium, owner of the truck forwarded them to Court, got the seized railway fittings examined through the expert P.W.5, gave the truck in zima of Abdul Quaium and on completion of enquiry submitted P.R. under Section 3(a) of the R.P.F. Act. 3. The plea of the accused persons is complete denial of their involvement in the crime in question. To prove its case, prosecution examined 7 witnesses in all, as against none by the defence. 4. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the charge under Section 3(a) of the R.P.F. Act, holding that no independent witness was examined in respect of search and seizure that out of several railway fittings only 3 such fittings were produced before the Court and that the so called confessional statements were not recorded in accordance with law. Being aggrieved with the said judgment of acquittal, the State of Orissa has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submitted that the trial Court ought not have disbelieved the seizure witnesses, only because they were official ones. During cross examination it was elicited from P.W.1 that there was a Basti at a distance of about 200 yards and stock-yard about fifty yards apart from the place of detention of the truck. There is no evidence that the officer said to have seized the materials took any step to call any independent witness either from the said Basti or Stock-yard to remain present on the spot at the of seizure. On the other hand he preferred to call P.W.3, the Head Train Examiner, who was on duty at a distance of half a K.M. from the place of seizure. On the other hand he preferred to call P.W.3, the Head Train Examiner, who was on duty at a distance of half a K.M. from the place of seizure. Rakhaks G.B. Chhatri and R.C. Tiwari, who were at the spot and said to have intercepted the truck in question, were not examined by the prosecution. No doubt conviction can lie even basing on the evidence of official witnesses, but in the present case, the conduct of the officer seizing the incriminating articles in preferring to call P.W.3 from a distance of half K.M. instead of calling any witness from Basti or Stock-yard, withholding exami¬nation of the two material official witnesses, who were at the spot and participated in intercepting the truck, besides other infirmities as would be discussed by and by it casts a doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case. As found from the record the seized mustard seeds and sugar were ordered to be sold by the trial Court as the same were perishable in nature, but out of the seized railway fittings namely two pieces of spiring coils, one universal coupling, one adjusting pump and nine pieces of brake blocks, only one brake block, one sparing coil and one adjusting pump were produced before Court and marked as M.Os. I to III. Prosecution did not explain the whereabouts of the other railway fittings. Furthermore, it was elicited from P.W.6, during cross-examination that M.Os I to III were there in the R.P.F. Malkhana from the date of seizure till the same were produced before Court. So the possibility that those were planted to suit to this case cannot be ruled out. As regards the confes¬sional statement said to have been made by the accused-respondent before the enquiry officer, it is found from record that the same were written in English and not in verbatim as required under law. Moreover, the accused persons retracted their confessional statements. Furthermore, there was no independent witness to such confession. So, the trial Court rightly discarded the so called confessional statements. It is the settled principle of law that if the view taken by trial Court is a plausible one, the appel¬late Court should not interfere with the same, even if another view could have been taken. The view taken by the trial Court is a plausible one. Apart from all these, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1984. It is the settled principle of law that if the view taken by trial Court is a plausible one, the appel¬late Court should not interfere with the same, even if another view could have been taken. The view taken by the trial Court is a plausible one. Apart from all these, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1984. In the meantime about 23 years has already been elapsed. It would be travesty of justice to set aside the order of acquittal and record an order of conviction at such a belated stage. Under all these premises, I do not think it proper to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.