Judgment :- 1. The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 17.3.2004 in Crl.A.No.211 of 2003 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment dated 9.6.2003 in C.C.No.258 of 1993 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 2. The respondent-Railway Protection Force-complainant has filed a final report against the revision petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, and the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner/accused in respect of the said offence and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment, against which, the revision petitioner/accused preferred appeal before the appellate Court, which confirmed the judgment of the trial Court, against which, the present Crl.R.C. has been filed by the revision petitioner/accused. 3. The case of the prosecution in a nut-shell is as follows: On 3.3.1990 at about 3.30 p.m., one Shekar/accused was caught hold by the Central Railway Police and from him, the properties of the Railways had been seized by P.W.1 Thangaraj, Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force (RPF) and through him, M.Os.1 and 2 have been seized under Ex.P-1. During his confession, the said Shekar/accused told that he sold the railway property to the revision petitioner/accused/Palanivel. On that basis, on 3.3.1990 at about 5.30 p.m., the RPF authorities made a search at Door No.106, Anna Pillai Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai, which belongs to P.W.9 Pavasamin, the owner of the house where the revision petitioner/accused has been conducting Aluminium Vessel business. At that time, the RPF authorities seized the properties belonging to the Railways in M.Os.3 to 5 under seizure mahazar. At that time, Rs.3,300/- has also been seized under Ex.P-4 seizure mahazar in the presence of Kuppan and Govindarajan. The confession has been recorded under Ex.P-5 and the revision petitioner/accused was arrested and produced before Court and after examining the witnesses, the RPF authorities concluded the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 3(a) of the said Act on the basis of the complaint before the RPF. 4. The confession has been recorded under Ex.P-5 and the revision petitioner/accused was arrested and produced before Court and after examining the witnesses, the RPF authorities concluded the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 3(a) of the said Act on the basis of the complaint before the RPF. 4. Learned trial Magistrate, after following the procedures, and examining the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 10 and marking Ex.P-1 to P-27 and producing M.Os.1 to 5, and after examining the wife of the revision petitioner/accused, as D.W.1 and marking the telegram as Ex.D-1, found the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the said offence and ordered to pay fine, against which, he preferred appeal before the first appellate Court, which, after hearing the arguments of both counsel, confirmed the conviction and fine imposed by the trial Court, and challenging the same, the present Crl.R.C. has been filed by the revision petitioner/accused. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused made the following submissions: (i) On 3.3.1990, the revision petitioner/accused was taken by the RPF police and even though they have showed that the material objects have been seized at 9 am on 3.3.1990. Admittedly, the properties were handed over to the concerned Court only on 8.3.1990 and so, there was a delay of five days, which has not been properly explained by the prosecution as to why the properties seized were not sent to the Court forthwith and to substantiate his arguments, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused relied on the decision of this Court reported in 1975 Cri.L.J. 798 (In re Karunakaran and another), and stated that it is the duty of the investigating officer to despatch all the material documents then and there to the concerned Court without any delay. (ii) The revision petitioner/accused examined his wife as DW1 and through her, telegram sent by her on 3.3.1990 has been marked, which shows that the revision petitioner/accused was taken by the RPF Police on 3.3.1990 and he was not produced before the Court concerned and so, a false case has been foisted against the revision petitioner/accused. (ii) The revision petitioner/accused examined his wife as DW1 and through her, telegram sent by her on 3.3.1990 has been marked, which shows that the revision petitioner/accused was taken by the RPF Police on 3.3.1990 and he was not produced before the Court concerned and so, a false case has been foisted against the revision petitioner/accused. (iii) Nextly, he contended that even the confession has been signed by the revision petitioner/accused and he is a literate and it is not known as to why the confession has not been written on his own handwriting and since it was a concocted document, they have only obtained the signature. The trial Court has not considered all these aspects in proper circumspection and prayed for setting aside the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence of fine. 6. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent-RPF stated that the RPF authorities have seized the materials only on the basis of the search memo and the trial Court has given a reasoning as to why the evidence of DW1 was not considered and Ex.D-1 was concocted only for the purpose of the case and so, the evidence of DW1 has clearly proved that Ex.D-1 has been issued to help the husband of DW1, i.e. the revision petitioner, to escape from the clutches of law. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the revision petitioner has not only signed in the confession, but also signed in the seizure mahazar and search warrant and hence, merely because the confession was written by the Officer and signed by the revision petitioner/accused, that will not vitiate the sanctity of the confession. He further submitted that the properties are Railway properties and to get the certificate from the concerned authorities, the materials have been transported from Mumbai and the Officer concerned has been sent for from Mumbai Chatrapathi Sivaji Terminal and certificate has been obtained and then only the properties have been despatched to the concerned Court and so, the delay has been properly explained. He prayed for dismissing the Crl.R.C. 7. He prayed for dismissing the Crl.R.C. 7. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, it is true that as per the evidence, on 3.3.1990 at 5.30 p.m., the vessel shop of the revision petitioner/accused has been searched and at that time, M.Os.3 to 5 have been seized and since M.O.5 consists of some copper wires, that has been sold in the market and the amount of Rs.3,300/- had been seized. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that P.Ws.5, 8 and 9 who are from Mumbai, inspected the property and they gave a certificate and the material object, namely M.O.5 wooden log has been sent by parcel from Mumbai Chatrapathi Sivaji Terminal and so, after the seizure of the material object, to prove that the materials seized from the revision petitioner/accused belongs to the Railways, they have taken steps to get the certificate from the concerned authority and then only, they have despatched them to the concerned Court. 8. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision of this Court relied on by learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused, reported in 1975 Cri.L.J. 798 (In Re Karunakaran and another), in which, a Division Bench of this Court observed as follows: "26. While hearing referred trials and criminal appeals, we have come across instances where there was inordinate delay in sending the complaint given to the police and the printed form first information report to the Sub-Magistrate. We make the following suggestions to ensure that the really guilty (legally proved to be guilty) may not escape the clutches of law and the really innocent may not be falsely implicated by the ingenuity of the prosecuting machinery. 27. In some instances we were not able to find out at what precise point of time on a particular day the complaint made to the police, and the relevant first information report were received by the Sub-Magistrate, for they contained only the initials of the Sub-Magistrate, and the date. The importance of noting the exact time cannot be over-stated or over-emphasised. The importance of noting the exact time cannot be over-stated or over-emphasised. We have also come across instances where we could not be sure whether the inquest report and the statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest accompanying the inquest report had been sent to the Sub-Magistrate on the day when they purported to have been sent, since they did not contain the initials of the Sub-Magistrate with the date of the receipt of the same. In our note dated 28.3.1974 we had stressed the importance of noting the time at which and the date on which these documents were received by the Sub-Magistrate, since the guilt of the accused or his innocence could be guaged, measured and determined unmistakably from certain documents received by the courts in good time and we find that a Circular, R.O.C.No.2272-A/74-F1, dated 20.6.1974 was sent to all the Magistrates. In the instant case we had grave doubts whether the inquest report and the statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest and said to have accompanied the inquest report were received by the Sub-Magistrate on a particular day, for the Magistrate had initialed the inquest report, but in the date seal which was affixed to the inquest report the date was written in ink. The statements of the witnesses recorded during the inquest, however, did not contain the initials of the Sub-Magistrate at all. There was a lurking and gnawing suspicion in our minds whether they were smuggled into the Court of the Sub-Magistrate belatedly and far later. We are therefore of the opinion that it is imperative that the following documents should be despatched immediately, without any delay by the investigating officers to the Sub-Magistrate. The Station-House Officer should record the time of the actual despatch of the various documents in the various registers, particularly, the statement recorded u/s.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On receipt of the said documents, the Magistrate should initial the same, noting therein the time and date of the receipt of those documents. This would provide the only judicial safeguard against subsequent fabrication of such documents in grave crimes. On receipt of the said documents, the Magistrate should initial the same, noting therein the time and date of the receipt of those documents. This would provide the only judicial safeguard against subsequent fabrication of such documents in grave crimes. Therefore, as the Manual of Instructions for the guidance of Magistrates in the Madras State does not contain any instructions to the Magistrates in this regard, we suggest that the same may be brought up to date by incorporating in it the circulars which had been issued from time to time for the guidance of the Magistrates. The following are documents of special importance which, in our opinion, should be despatched by the investigating officers without any delay to the Magistrates, and they should bear the initials of the Magistrate with reference to both the time and date of their receipt. 1. The original report or complaint under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The printed form of the first information report prepared on the basis of the said report or complaint. 3. Inquest reports and statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest. 4. Memo sent by the Station House Officers to doctors for treating the injured victims who die in the hospital subsequently and the history of the case treatment. 5. Memo sent by the doctor to the police when a person with injuries is, brought to, the hospital, or the death memo sent by the doctor to the police on the death of the person admitted into the hospital with injuries. 6. Observation mahazars and mahazars for the recovery of material objects search lists and the statements given by the accused admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, etc., prepared in the course of the investigation. 7. The statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Form No.91 accompanied by material objects." 9. It is true that those documents are necessary, but in this case, it is a property belonging to the Railways, and it is the duty of the Railway Police to prove that the material objects seized from the petitioner's shop belongs to the petitioner and so, they ought to have taken steps to obtain necessary certificate from the officials of the Railways and in such circumstances, I am of the view that the delay in despatching the documents will not vitiate the conviction. 10. 10. Next limb of argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused is that D.W.1 deposed that her husband, the revision petitioner, has been taken by the Railway Police and so, she has issued a telegram under Ex.D-1. In her evidence, she has stated as follows: 11. From the above evidence of D.W.1, the wife of the revision petitioner/accused, it is clear that as per the instructions given by her Advocate, D.W.1 has sent telegram, but admittedly, as per the documents produced by the Railway Police (prosecution), the search has been conducted at 5 p.m. on 3.3.1990 and seizure has been made at that time, but the revision petitioner/accused was subsequently remanded to judicial custody and so, the evidence of D.W.1 clearly proved that to help her husband (revision petitioner) to escape from the clutches of law, on the instructions of the Advocate, she sent such a telegram Ex.D-1 as stated by her husband. The Courts below considered this aspect in proper perspective and disbelieved the evidence of D.W.1 and rejected her evidence. So, I do not find any infirmity in the findings rendered by the Courts below for eschewing or rejecting the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.D-1 telegram. 12. The next branch of argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is that the confession Ex.P-9 has been only signed by the revision petitioner/accused, but not wholly written by him. But the confession had been written by the officials and signed by him. 13. In this regard, it is appropriate to notice the questioning of the revision petitioner/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he has stated that a false case has been foisted against him, and he never stated that he never signed the confession. Furthermore, he never stated that he has not given any confession. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that the entire confession has not been written by the accused vitiates the conviction, does not merit acceptance. 14. Furthermore, he never stated that he has not given any confession. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that the entire confession has not been written by the accused vitiates the conviction, does not merit acceptance. 14. P.W.1 Inspector of Police of RPF has first arrested one Shekar and seized M.Os.1 and 2 and recorded his confession and on the basis of the said confession, he suspected that the revision petitioner/accused has purchased the RPF property and hence, he made a search of the business place of the revision petitioner and seized M.Os.3 to 5 in the presence of the witnesses and at that time, the revision petitioner/accused also gave a confession that the properties belong to the Railways and the same has been proved by examining P.Ws.8 and 9 and their evidence is that those M.Os.1 to 5 will not be available in the market and that will not be sold in the public auction by the Railways. In such circumstances, the Railway Police (RPF) has clearly proved that the petitioner/accused was in possession of the Railway property unauthorisedly. 15. Both the Courts below are correct in holding that the revision petitioner/accused is guilty of the offence under Section 3(a) of the Act and accordingly convicted him and imposed a fine of Rs.500/-. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned conviction and fine, passed by both the Courts below. 16. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the conviction and fine imposed by the Courts below.