JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Md. Asif Khan, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 20.01.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2003/31 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahebganj, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhagalpur in R.P.S. Case No. 31 of 1987 by which the petitioners have been convicted for offences punishable u/s 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 13.12.1985 when Train No. 333 UP arrived at Sahebganj station the guard of the train made a report that S.L.P. Pad lock was missing. It is alleged that when the guard checked the compartment he found 4 bundles of H.C.C. booked from R.J.G.R. to B.G.P. were missing. It is alleged that on search one bundle was recovered between Barharwa and Bakundi Railway station. On secret information a search was conducted in Dighy village where 4 to 5 persons were seen picking something and when they tried to flee away three persons were apprehended who disclosed the name of the petitioners. After the prosecution report was submitted cognizance was taken and thereafter trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Manoj Kumar Sinha has stated that on the relevant date he was posted at Sahibganj and when he was going towards Bakudih with other Railway personnel they had found one bundle lying near the railway line. He has deposed that on 16.12.1985 three persons were apprehended who were digging out the goods from a ditch but the other persons had managed to flee away. P.W.2 Sitaram Sharma is a seizure list witness who has proved the seizure list. P.W.3 R.K. Sinha has deposed that he had formed the search party for recovery of stolen railway articles. He has deposed that three persons were apprehended who had disclosed the name of these petitioners. P.W.4 Tarkeshwar Singh is also an eye witness as he was the member of the raiding party and had apprehended the three accused persons. P.W.5 Rajendra Yadav has also supported the prosecution case. P.W.6 Arjun Pd. Singh has been tendered by the prosecution. He has deposed that three persons were apprehended who had disclosed the name of these petitioners. P.W.4 Tarkeshwar Singh is also an eye witness as he was the member of the raiding party and had apprehended the three accused persons. P.W.5 Rajendra Yadav has also supported the prosecution case. P.W.6 Arjun Pd. Singh has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.7 B.P. Patnayak was the Deputy Superintendent who had sent the forwarding note to eastern mill Industry, Patna. This witness has stated about the booking of the consignment made in the Railway Department. P.W.8 P.K. Mishra has stated that he had put the numbers on the goods on the basis of builty. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. It has been submitted that the person who had initially informed about the bundles having been stolen who was the guard of the train was never examined by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Investigating Officer has not been examined and the inquiry report has also not been exhibited. It has been submitted that only on the basis of the confessional statement of the apprehended persons the petitioners have been implicated and in absence of any other materials the petitioners deserves acquittal. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has supported the impugned orders. 7. It appears that it is the consistent case of the prosecution that some bundles were found missing from the S.L.R. compartment and while one bundle was recovered from the railway line between Barharwa and Bakundi railway station but so far as the other bundles are concerned search operation was carried out in Dighy village and three persons were apprehended. The petitioners have been put to trial on account of their name being taken by the other accused persons and save and except the alleged confession made before some of the prosecution witnesses as has been disclosed by them, there is no other material which would corroborate or substantiate the role of the petitioners in committing the offence. The confession of the apprehended accused persons leading to implication of the petitioners have to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability and also on the basis of substantial evidence to support such contention. The confession of the apprehended accused persons leading to implication of the petitioners have to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability and also on the basis of substantial evidence to support such contention. However, the supporting evidence is lacking in the present case as nothing has been brought forward by the prosecution to strengthen the case against the petitioners. The Investigating Officer of the case was not examined which has caused prejudice to the defence as his evidence could have been shot in the arm for the prosecution with respect to the confession made by the apprehended accused persons. In absence of any other materials against the petitioners save and except the confessional statement of the apprehended accused persons the conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained. 8. In such view of the matter, therefore, this application is allowed and the judgment dated 20.01.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2003/31 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahebganj and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhagalpur in R.P.S. Case No. 31 of 1987, are hereby, set aside. 9. The petitioners are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bond. 10. This application stands allowed. Application allowed.