JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The accused respondents were acquitted by the learned Special Railway Magistrate of the offence u/s 3 of the Railway Properties Unlawful Possession Act (in short, R.P.U.P. Act) in connection with CR Case No. 18/2000. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate the Assistant Security Commissioner (Prosecution) of the Protection Force has preferred this appeal for setting aside the judgment of acquittal. 3. Heard Mr. D. K. Dey, learned SC, Railway. Also heard Mr. R. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent No. 3 and Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent No. 4 as well as Ms. Ivy Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent No. 2. The case against accused respondent No.1 abated due to his death. 4. The facts of the case in a nutshell is that on the evening of 14.04.200 some stolen railway materials which were kept in the Railway malkhana in New Bongaigaon Railway Station and was seized in connection with a case were stolen from the malkhana and those were shifted to the godown of the accused respondent No.1 situated at a little distance away from the Railway Station. Senior Railway Officials having come to know about the commission of theft of the materials conducted search in the godown of the accused respondent No.1 and recovered the materials and those were seized. 5. Written FIR, Exbt.2 relating to the occurrence was lodged on 21.04.2000 on the basis of which a case was registered and on completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused respondents. 6. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses before the learned Magistrate. Defence also examined 1 witness in support of their plea that all the materials seized from the godown of the accused respondent No.1 are railway auctioned purchased materials. On completion of the trial the learned Magistrate found the accused respondents not guilty u/s 3 of the R.P. U.P Act and accordingly returned verdict of acquittal. 7. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the Railway made strenuous submission to convince me that the learned SRM has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal has been passed under total misconception of law and facts. 7. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the Railway made strenuous submission to convince me that the learned SRM has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal has been passed under total misconception of law and facts. He has led me through the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses to project that they are highly reliable witnesses being officials of the Railways and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. However he has admitted that the main accused of the case in whose godown the railway materials were recovered has already died. However, the supervisor of the godown accused respondent No.2’s complicity in the commission of the crime cannot be ruled out. He further submits that the accused respondent No. 3 and 4 were Railway Officials posted as Railway Protection Force Inspector and Constables and they rendered help in transferring the stolen materials to the gowdown of the accused respondent No.1 from the ‘malkhana’. 8. In controversion, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents submit that recovery might have been made from the godown of the accused respondent No.1 but the present accused respondents were not involved in the case and their identity have not been established and there is nothing in the evidence to show that they were involved in the commission of theft of the railway materials. It is also submitted that there is total lack of evidence to show that the materials which were missing from the malkhana of the RPF were the materials recovered from the godown of the accused respondent No.1. 9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions, I have meticulously gone through the entire evidence on record. 10. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses there is no room for doubt that different railway materials were recovered and seized from the godown of the accused respondent No.1 on search by the Railway Officials accompanied by the Railway Protection Force Officers. Those were seized and seizure has been duly proved. It is in the evidence that the materials were initially kept in the Railway malkhana and those were shifted to a nearby place and lateron carried in a truck to the godown of the accused respondent No.1 situated at a little distance away from the Station. 11. Those were seized and seizure has been duly proved. It is in the evidence that the materials were initially kept in the Railway malkhana and those were shifted to a nearby place and lateron carried in a truck to the godown of the accused respondent No.1 situated at a little distance away from the Station. 11. PW 10 is the truck driver in whose truck the materials were shifted to the godown and he clearly testified that as per instruction of the owner of the truck and the RPF staff he loaded the materials in the truck and those were taken to the godown in the evening itself. Although he has deposed that he saw one RPF personnel at the place of occurrence and would be able to identify him but no step of any kind was taken by the I/O to get the RPF staff identified by this witness. Prosecution made a feeble attempt to prove through the evidence of PW 19, Bipin Sarma who was the in charge of the GRP at the relevant time, to prove that the constable Pradhan was loading the materials in the truck. Although he claims to have made a GD entry but strangely enough he admittedly even did not mention the number of the truck in the GD entry. On the basis of the purported statement of PW 19 that he saw one Pradhan that too without providing his actual name that he was loading the materials in the truck, the accused respondents cannot be held liable for their complicity in the commission of the crime. 12. Having considered the submission of the learned counsels and upon consideration of the entire evidence on record and the impugned judgment of the trial court, I do not find any compelling reason to overrule and set aside the findings of the trial court. 13. The appeal preferred by the State is accordingly dismissed. 14. Return the LCR forthwith.