JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Having found the two accused Petitioners herein guilty of the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Properties (Unlawful) Possession Act, 1966, in CR case No. 90/2005, the learned Special Railway Magistrate, Kamrup, convicted them accordingly and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each with further direction that the seized materials to be delivered to the Railways. As the appeal, preferred by the accused-Petitioners, which gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 89/2009, has been dismissed by the learned Additional Judge No. 2, Kamrup, by judgment and order, dated 31.8.2010, the accused Petitioners have impugned the same in this petition made under Section 432 Code of Criminal procedure. 2. I have heard Ms. M. Bora, learned Counsel, for the accused-Petitioners, and Mr V.S. Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described, thus On 11.11.2005, at about 5.15 hours, the RPF Officers, and staff of Rangia RPF post conducted raid in the section between Goreswar and Khandikar Railway Station against theft of Railway materials and during the course of raid at about 8.55 hours, they caught red-handed accused Md. Amir Hussain near the level crossing gate, when he was proceeding by his bicycle with a gunny bag containing some Railway materials. During investigation, accused Md. Amir Hussain disclosed that he was hawker under accused Mohsin Ali and used to sell the Railway materials to him. Thereafter, on being led by him, the RPF personnel went to the scrap godown of accused Md. Mohsin Ali and, on conducting a search there, some more Railway materials were recovered and the same Were seized. A case was accordingly registered, an enquiry was held and, on completion of enquiry, prosecution report, under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 ('the said Act') was laid against both the accused persons. 4. During the course of trial, when a charge, framed under Section 3(a) of the said Act was explained to the accused-Petitioners, the two accused-Petitioners pleaded not guilty thereto. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined eight witnesses. The accused were, then, examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal procedure. In their examination aforementioned, the accused denied that they had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of denial. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined eight witnesses. The accused were, then, examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal procedure. In their examination aforementioned, the accused denied that they had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. 6. Having found both the accused guilty of the offence charged with, the learned trial Court convicted them accordingly and passed sentences against them as mentioned above. As the appeal filed by the accused Petitioners has also failed to yield any favourable result, the present petition, under Section 482, Code of Criminal procedure, has been filed by the accused-Petitioners challenging their conviction as well as the sentence passed against them. 7. While considering the present revision, it needs to be noted, at the very outset, that in order to bring home an accusation under Section 3(a) of the Act against any person, the following fact are required to be proved by the prosecution; (a) that the property, in question, is a railway property; (b) that such a person is found, or proved to have been, in possession of such property and (c) that such property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. Once the prosecution has established the aforesaid three facts, the burden shifts to the person accused of that offence to prove that such property came into his possession lawfully. 8. It has been submitted, on behalf of the accused Petitioners, that the properties, which were allegedly seized from the possession of the accused, could not be proved to be railway properties and, hence, their conviction was bad in law. 9. While considering the above submission made on behalf of the accused-Petitioners, it needs to be noted that the fact that accused. Md. Amir Hussain was caught with a gunny bag, being carried by him on his, bicycle, containing some materials and/or the fact that on being led by accused Md. Amir Hussain, a raid was conducted by the RPF personnel at the scrap godown of accused-Petitioner, Mohsin Ali, could not be seriously disputed at the time of hearing of this petition. Md. Amir Hussain was caught with a gunny bag, being carried by him on his, bicycle, containing some materials and/or the fact that on being led by accused Md. Amir Hussain, a raid was conducted by the RPF personnel at the scrap godown of accused-Petitioner, Mohsin Ali, could not be seriously disputed at the time of hearing of this petition. This apart, from the evidence, adduced by the prosecution with the help of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 7, it clearly transpires, as has been correctly noted by the learned Court below, that on the relevant day, a raid against theft of railway materials at MG Section between Goreswar and Khandikar Railway Stations is conducted and during the raid, they Apprehended accused Amir Hussain, while he was carrying two way keys (50 Nos.), cotter pins (42 Nos.), fishplates (4 Nos.) and fish bolt (1 No.) in a gunny bag and that accused Amir Hussain failed to produce any document in support of his lawful possession of these materials. The materials were accordingly seized by P.W. 1 in the presence of independent witnesses, namely, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 and a Seizure list was also prepared. This part of the evidence of the P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 who are all RPF personnel, has been fully corroborated by the two independent witnesses, namely, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. 10. Coupled with the above, it is in the evidence of the Witnesses aforementioned that accused Md. Amir Hussain, on being interrogated, disclosed that he used to sell railway materials to accused Mohsin All. Thereafter, on being led by the accused Amir Hussain, they (P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 7) visited the scrap godown of accused Mohsin Ali and recovered from there two way keys (12 Nos.) and cotter pins (15 Nos.) in respect whereof accused Mohsin Ali failed to produce any valid document. These materials too were seized in presence of independent witnesses. Though the witnesses aforementioned were cross-examined by the defence, nothing could be brought out to show that what they had deposed was untrue, false or could not have been relied upon or ought not to have been relied upon. Thus, recovery of materials aforementioned stood convincingly proved by the prosecution. 11. Though the witnesses aforementioned were cross-examined by the defence, nothing could be brought out to show that what they had deposed was untrue, false or could not have been relied upon or ought not to have been relied upon. Thus, recovery of materials aforementioned stood convincingly proved by the prosecution. 11. The limited question, therefore, which has to be determined and has been agitated before this Court, in the present criminal petition, is whether the seized materials were railway properties. It has been, contended, on behalf of the accused-Petitioners, that there is no convincing proof that the materials seized from the possession of the Petitioners were railway properties and in the absence of clear docent and convincing proof that the materials seized from the possession of the accused-Petitioners were Railway properties, the prosecution of the accused-Petitioners, their trial and in consequence thereupon, their conviction is misconceived in law. 12. For the purpose of proving that the seized materials were Railway properties, prosecution examined P.W. 4, who has been working as SEP-way/Majbat. This witness's evidence is that after examining the seized materials, he (P.W. 4) issued a certificate (Ext. 8) to the effect that those materials were exclusively Railway materials, they were serviceable and were used in track fittings for regular track maintenance. What is extremely important to note in the evidence of P.W. 4 is that he has asserted that he has been serving Railway Department for the last 14 years and from his experience, he could say that the materials were Railway properties. 13. Considering the fact that P.W. 4 had been dealing day in and day, out with Railway materials, his evidence that the seized materials were Railway material could not have been rejected and, hence, rightly not been rejected by the learned trial Court, for, P.W. 4 does have, according to the evidence on record, requisite experience to say as to whether the seized materials were or were not railway properties. By cross-examining P.W. 4, the defence elicited nothing to show that P.W. 4 did not have the ability or capacity to certify the said materials as Railway materials nor did the defence adduce any evidence to show that the seized materials were not Railway properties. 14. By cross-examining P.W. 4, the defence elicited nothing to show that P.W. 4 did not have the ability or capacity to certify the said materials as Railway materials nor did the defence adduce any evidence to show that the seized materials were not Railway properties. 14. Situated thus, I hold that the learned trial Court has correctly held that the evidence on record leaves no room for doubt that the seized oracles were Railway property within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the said Act. 15. Because of the fact that the evidence on record convincingly proved that the accused-Petitioner, Md. Amir Hussain, was found in possession of Railway property, which he was carrying on his bicycle, it was rightly held, by the learned trial Court, that this accused had been found in possession of railway property. Because of the further fact that the accused-Petitioner, namely, Md. Amir Hussain, had failed to give any explanation, far less plausible and convincing, of having come into possession of the said Railway property, lawfully, the learned trial Court was bound and has rightly held that the accused-Petitioner, Md. Amir Hussain had been found in unlawful possession of railway property. 16. Similarly, because of the fact that on a search being conducted at the scrap godown of accused-Petitioner, Mohsin Ali, Railway properties were recovered, there could not have been any escape from the conclusion and was rightly held by the learned trial Court that the accused-Petitioner, Mohsin Ali, too, was found in possession of Railway property. In his case too, the question remained as to whether he, i.e., accused-Petitioner, Mohsin Ali, was in lawful possession of the Railway property or not. Because of the fact that the accused-Petitioner, Mohsin Ali, too, miserably failed to produce any document or material to show that the was in possession of the Railway property lawfully, the inescapable conclusion was and it was rightly concluded by the learned trial Court, that the accused-Petitioner, Mohsin Ali, too, had been found in unlawful possession of Railway property. 17. Both the accused-Petitioners having, thus, been found in unlawful possession of Railway property, they were rightly held to be guilty of the offence under Section 3(a) of the said Act. I do not find that the finding of guilt, reached by the learned trial Court against the two accused-Petitioner, suffer from and error, legal or factual. 18. 17. Both the accused-Petitioners having, thus, been found in unlawful possession of Railway property, they were rightly held to be guilty of the offence under Section 3(a) of the said Act. I do not find that the finding of guilt, reached by the learned trial Court against the two accused-Petitioner, suffer from and error, legal or factual. 18. Situated thus, it becomes clear, that the accused-Petitioners were rightly and legally convicted of the offence under Section 3(a) of the said Act. 19. Coming to the sentence, which has been passed against the accused-Petitioner, it needs to be pointed out that the prescribed punishment, in terms of Section 3(a) of the said Act, is, ordinarily, 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, To put it a little differently, a person, is punishable for imprisonment for 5 years or with fine or with both and if the Court considers that the imprisonment shall be less than 5 years, than, the imprisonment shall not be less then 5 year and the fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees. Further, in Order to enable a Court to pass the sentence of less than 5 years or to pass a sentence of one year imprisonment, special and adequate reasons have to be assigned in the judgment. In the present case, both the accused-Petitioners have been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. Since the sentence, passed against each of the accused-Petitioners, is less than the minimum prescribed punishment, this Court cannot hold that the sentence, passed against the accused-Petitioners, is bad in law. 20. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this revision fails. The conviction of the accused-Petitioners and the sentences passed against them are upheld. 21. With the above observations and directions, this revision shall accordingly stand dismissed. Petition dismissed