JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard argument from the parties, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows. 2. State has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1990 as against the order of conviction u/s 3(a) of the Railway Property (D.P.) Act. 3. Substance of the accusation against the accused-Respondents was that they were found in possession of certain articles made of iron, which was claimed by the Railway Police at Rourkela as the railway property. In the Trial Court's judgment the aforesaid aspect has been detaily mentioned so also in the evidence on record. Relying on the evidence of P. Ws.1 to 3 on the factum of seizure and the evidence of P. Ws.5 and 6 as the Expert to notify about the ownership of the property, the Trial Court found the accused persons to be in possession of the same at the time of seizure. Accordingly, Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rourkela in 2 (c) C.C. Case No. 130 of 1984 convicted both the Appellants and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Trial Court also passed order to return the seized properties to the authority of R.P.F. at Rourkela and the other articles to its owner. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while examining the aforesaid order of conviction, found sufficient lacuna in the prosecution case. Learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that amongst the witnesses to the seizure, only P.W. 2 was an independent person, but he was not present at the time of unloading of the truck and preparation of the seizure list, and that casts doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case on the face of denial of the accused persons in claiming ownership or possession over the seized articles. Inter alia, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge also found that the evidence of P. Ws.5 and 6 do not prove that they made examination of the seized articles as the Experts in furtherance of their opinion that such seized articles belong to Railway Department and that there is absence of sufficient evidence to prove that accused persons were in possession of the premises from which the articles were being loaded in the truck. Accordingly, Learned Addl. Accordingly, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge ordered for acquittal of the accused persons but did not disturb the order of the Trial Court relating to disposal of the seized property. 5. The State has preferred this appeal as against the aforesaid order of acquittal of Learned Addl. Sessions Judge. After going through the evidence on record and hearing both the parties, this Court finds that Learned Addl. Sessions Judge took a reasonable view on the basis of evidence on record and granted benefit thereof to the accused persons. Under such circumstance, this Court finds no reason to interfere with that order of acquittal so also to disturb the order passed by the Trial Court relating to the manner of disposal of the property. Thus, I find no merit in the Govt. Appeal and the same is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed