Judgment The Appellant/complainant has projected the instant criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment of acquittal dated 18.9.2003 in C.C.No.1928 of 1996 passed by the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. Learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.1928 of 1996, on 18.9.2003 had, inter alia, observed that ... the witnesses examined in the present case and in regard to many important features, they had deposed in a contradictory manner and therefore, a situation had arisen that the charge levelled against the respondents/accused was not able to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and ultimately by granting the benefit of doubt by holding that the charge under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, against the respondents was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, since they were found not guilty. 3. The Appellant/complainant being dissatisfied with the Judgment of acquittal on 18.9.2003 in C.C.No.1928 of 1996 on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, has preferred the present instant Appeal before this Court. 4. According to the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contends that the trial Court acquitted the second and third respondents/A.2 and A.3 by holding that they were not liable for the offence as no property was recovered from them is not correct in the eye of law. At this stage, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the possession ought to be a subsistence possession for the purpose of an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Further, it would suffice if the accused were proved to have been in possession of the property at any point of time. 6. That apart, the properties recovered from the first Respondent/Accused was at some previous point of time in possession of the second and third respondents/A.2 and A.3 and they had disposed of the same to the first respondent/A.1 and resultantly they were also liable in respect of an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. 7. That apart, the properties recovered from the first Respondent/Accused was at some previous point of time in possession of the second and third respondents/A.2 and A.3 and they had disposed of the same to the first respondent/A.1 and resultantly they were also liable in respect of an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. 7. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellant proceeds to submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the unassailable evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.7 in regard to the seizure of the case properties and identification of the same during trial. 8. Also that, just because the witnesses turned hostile, it could not be held that the accused had not committed the offence in question. 9. Expatiating his submission, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the confessional statements of the respondents/accused, which were corroborated by clear and cogent evidences of P.W.1, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.13, were not taken into consideration by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective. 10. Finally, it is the submission of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the trial Court had committed an error in ordering return of sale proceeds of stolen Railway property of Rs.3,500/- to the first Respondent/Accused and the said act of the trial Court in this regard is an illegal one in the eye of law. 11. The case of the Appellant/complainant is that on 27.9.1995, from morning 9.15 a.m., till 10.00 a.m. at Chennai Villivakkam New Avadi Road at Door No.12, in the shop belonging to the Accused, namely, Sameena Traders, the copper chips worth about 5 kilos and 2 aluminum axle box covers were sold and the money of Rs.3,500/-was kept without any document in an unlawful manner and those properties were stolen by the second and third respondents/A.2 and A.3 from the Railway and sold the same in the shop of the first respondent/A.1. As such, the Respondents 1 to 3 were charged before the trial Court. 12. On the side of the Appellant/prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined and Exhibits P.1 to P.21 were marked. On the side of the respondents/accused, no documents were marked and further no one was examined as witness. 13. As such, the Respondents 1 to 3 were charged before the trial Court. 12. On the side of the Appellant/prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined and Exhibits P.1 to P.21 were marked. On the side of the respondents/accused, no documents were marked and further no one was examined as witness. 13. The Respondents/Accused were charged under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, and the respondents/accused denied the charge levelled against them and demanded to take trial in the case. 14. When the Respondents/Accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in regard to the incriminating circumstance appearing in the evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime. 15. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that based on the confession given by the second and third respondents/A.2 and A.3, the first respondent/A.1's shop was searched by him. As far as the present case is concerned, the confessional statements of the second and third respondents/A.2 and A.3 were not marked in the present case in C.C.No.1928 of 1996. 16. Significantly, in Exhibit P.2, search mahazar, the second and third respondents' signatures were not to be seen. As a matter of fact, the search mahazar was prepared with reference to the properties being seized from the shop of the first respondent/A.1. In the absence of their signatures in Exhibit P.2, search mahazar, there is no proof in the case for the Appellant/prosecution to state that only on the basis of the information furnished by the second and third respondents/A.2 and A.3, the shop of the first respondent/A.1 was searched and properties were seized. 17. Equally, there is no proof on the side of the Appellant/prosecution to establish that the First Respondent/A.1 voluntarily tendered Rs.3,500/-to the Railway Protection Force Police. Even independent witnesses signed in Exhibit P.2 were also not examined on the side of the Appellant/prosecution before the trial Court. Indeed, the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that in Exhibit P.2, no signatures of the second and third respondents/A.2 and A.3, are seen/found is certainly a circumstance, which goes against the Appellant/complainant in the considered opinion of this Court. 18. Indeed, the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that in Exhibit P.2, no signatures of the second and third respondents/A.2 and A.3, are seen/found is certainly a circumstance, which goes against the Appellant/complainant in the considered opinion of this Court. 18. That apart, in the present case, P.W.1, in his evidence, had deposed that from the First Respondent/A.1's shop, 2 Aluminum Axle Box Covers and 5 kilos weight of copper chips were seized and in M.O.1 series in the black ink, the number 01865/94 was recorded in stencil but these details admittedly did not find a place in Exhibit P.2 search mahazar. In short, from the evidence of P.W.1, it is quite evident that the second and third Respondents/A.2 and A.3 had no direct link in the present case. 19. It is true that the confessional statements of second and the third Respondents/A.2 and A.3 purportedly given in C.C.No.1928 of 1996 were marked as Exhibits P.16 and P.17 before the trial Court. In this connection, it may not be out of place for this Court to make a significant mention that there was no explanation offered on the side of the Appellant/complainant as to how the Sub Inspector of Railway Protection Force came to know about the address of the first respondent/A.1. In reality, P.W.11 and P.W.13 had turned hostile. 20. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.12 is concerned, he had deposed that in the said shop there were two iron objects but the said objects had not found a place in Exhibit P.2, search mahazar. However, P.W.1 had deposed in his evidence that the Aluminum Axle Box Covers and copper chips were seized. But in his cross examination, he had stated that he does not know the place from which the said iron objects were taken and that apart, he had also stated that he does not know how much money was taken and also that he had not seen the second and the third respondents/A.2 and A.3 at that place. Moreover, he had stated that he had not seen anything at that time of search and he does not know about the present case details. 21. In fact, P.W.12 had not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. In a criminal case, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond all shadow of doubt. 21. In fact, P.W.12 had not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. In a criminal case, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond all shadow of doubt. P.W.7 had also deposed that in search mahazar, Exhibit P.2, he had not signed which was admitted by him. Equally, there was no evidence to show on the side of the Appellant/prosecution that at that point of search as to the place where P.W.7 was there. 22. P.W.3 had also stated in his evidence that the properties presently there were no identity slips and no certificate was obtained in regard to the inspection of the properties made by him with that of comparison the same made with the materials used by the concerned Industry. He had also stated that the identification slips, which were affixed at the time of inspection of the property, were not to be found presently and as such, there was no sufficient proof to show that those properties belong to the Railway Department. 23. P.W.4 had also stated in his evidence that in the material objects in one item over the Hindi letters, it was seen as 626 and below the same it was seen as 2. He had also stated that there was no identification slips signed by him. However, these details had not a place in the certificate given by him. The evidence of P.W.4 was not in favour of the Appellant/complainant because of the simple reason that a doubt had arisen as to whether the properties recovered from the shop of the first respondent/A.1 at the time of the search were the properties produced before the Court. 24. Also that, in the properties produced before the trial Court, there were no identifications found to confirm that these properties belong to Railways. P.W.10 in his evidence had stated that the first respondent/A.1 was doing the business on rent and for this there was no documentary proof and P.W.9 had stated that the place of the shop of the first respondent/A.1 belong to the National Highways. 25. Even independent witnesses were found to be there at that time of Exhibit P.2 search mahazar. P.W.10 in his evidence had stated that the first respondent/A.1 was doing the business on rent and for this there was no documentary proof and P.W.9 had stated that the place of the shop of the first respondent/A.1 belong to the National Highways. 25. Even independent witnesses were found to be there at that time of Exhibit P.2 search mahazar. At least, one among them was not examined before the trial Court to speak about the seizure of the properties and also in the present case, there was no indication from the records at which place when the second and third respondent/A.2 and A.3 were arrested. Even P.W.1 and other witnesses had also not clearly stated about the arrest of the second and third respondents/A.2 and A.3. 26. In the light of the foregoing discussions and in view of the fact that the seizure of the property from the first respondent/A.1's shop was not proved in the present case and further, also it was not established that the properties belong to the Railway Department and also because of the reason that the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution on important aspects had deposed in contradictory terms, this Court taking into account of the entire gamut of the matter and also considering the attendant facts and circumstances of the case comes to a consequent conclusion that the charge levelled against the respondents/A.1 to A.3 in respect of an offence under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt on the side of the prosecution. In this regard, the view taken by the trial Court in acquitting the Respondents/A.1 to A.3 does not suffer from any material infirmities or patent illegalities in the eye of law. Consequently, the criminal Appeal fails. 27. In the result, the criminal Appeal is dismissed. It is open to the first respondent/A.1 to claim a sum of Rs.3,500/- (being the money realised from the properties of the Railways brought to sale) from the trial Court in C.C.No.1928 of 1996 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, by filing the necessary miscellaneous petition in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, (if not already filed).