JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Aman Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. P. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. These applications are directed against the judgment dated 19.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1999/24 of 2003 (SBG) whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in O.C.R. Case No. 4 of 1989 corresponding to T. R. No. 38 of 1999 convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 3 a of the R.P.U.P. Act and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution report in brief is that a secret information was received by the complainant that huge quantity of railway material was being stolen from the railway quarry which was kept concealed by one Badruddin Ansari and there is likelihood of shifting the same to some other place. It is alleged that a team was constituted and the shop cum godown of co-convict Badruddin Ansari was raided. One person was apprehended who disclosed his name as Badruddin Ansari who is the owner of the shop cum godown and the other person disclosed his name as Sabir Ali. It is alleged that the godown was searched and huge quantity of stolen iron materials was recovered. Further allegation has been levelled that no document was produced by Badruddin with respect to the railway properties. Based on the aforesaid allegations, OCR Case No. 4 of 1989 u/s 3 a of R.P.U.P. Act dated 24.01.1989 was instituted. After submission of inquiry report, cognizance was taken by the learned court below and after charge was framed under Section 3 a of RPUP Act, trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial, 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 – Nizamuddin has stated that he was one of the members of the raiding party who had raided the shop cum godown in the house of the Badruddin Ansari and the said Badruddin was apprehended and on search, huge quantity of railway materials were seized. P.W. 2 – Dilip Kumar Jha was the train examiner who had submitted a report which had been marked as Exhibit 2. P.W. 2 – Dilip Kumar Jha was the train examiner who had submitted a report which had been marked as Exhibit 2. This witness has stated that he had examined all the railway materials which were seized and some of the railway goods were sold in the auction sale whereas some of the railway articles were not sold in auction sale. P.W. 3 – Rampreet Prasad is the Sub-Inspector of Taljhari Police Station who was also the member of the raiding party. This witness has stated that several stolen articles were recovered from the shop cum godown from the house of the Badruddin Ansari. This witness has stated that the seizure list was prepared by the RPF personnels and he had put his signature which has been marked as Exhibit 1/2. P.W. 4 – Ganesh Chandra Das was heading the raiding party. This witness has proved the signature on seizure list which is marked as Exhibit 1/5. He has also proved Exhibit 3 as also the statement of the accused persons marked as Exhibit 4 & 5. This witness has further proved the complaint petition and the map which has been marked as Exhibit 6 & 8 respectively. This witness has stated about the raid conducted in the shop cum house cum godown of the Badruddin Ansari and recovery of several stolen railway articles. P.W. 5 – Dasarath Singh was also the member of the raiding party who had supported the prosecution case. P.W. 6 – Subodh Kumar Karmkar is the seizure list witness who had accepted putting his signature in the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit 1/7. P.W. 7 – P. K. Singh has submitted that he had examined several railway properties which were seized and he has examined that several articles were not sold in auction and the same were not available in the open market. P.W. 8 – S. K. Singh is the Sub-Inspector of RPF force who is also the member of the raiding party and who has also supported the prosecution case. 5. P.W. 8 – S. K. Singh is the Sub-Inspector of RPF force who is also the member of the raiding party and who has also supported the prosecution case. 5. It appears from the evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution that most of the witnesses are members of the raiding party, who have conducted the raid on shop cum house cum godown of the Badruddin Ansari and several railway properties were recovered which on being tested were found not to be have been auction sold by the railways. The evidence of the witnesses thus clearly points to the involvement of Badruddin of being in unauthorised possession of the railway property. However, so far as Md. Mohram Ansari and Jafar Sheikh are concerned, it appears that save and except the confessional statement of co-convict Md. Badruddin Ansari, none of the witnesses have stated about their involvement or about the fact about their apprehension with the stolen railway material from the place of occurrence. The learned courts below have proceeded on a presumption against the co-convict Md. Mohram and Jafar Sheikh as being accomplices to Badruddin Ansari, but the fact remains that there is no iota of evidence which would suggest that Md. Mohram and Jafar Sheikh were the accomplices of Badruddin Ansari in getting possession of stolen railway property. 6. In view of what has been discussed above, therefore, while sustaining the judgment of conviction against the respondent – Md. Badruddin Ansari in Criminal Revision No. 663 of 2005, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against petitioner no. 1 in Criminal Revision No. 663 of 2005 – Jafar Sheikh and Md. Mohram, the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 659 of 2005 is hereby set aside. The aforesaid two petitioners are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bond. 7. However, as regards petitioner no. 2 – Md. Badruddin Ansari in Criminal Revision No. 663 of 2005 is concerned, it appears that he is facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 1989 and has also remained for some time in custody. Considering the aforesaid scenario, the period of sentence imposed against the petitioner no. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 663 of 2005 – Md. Badruddin Ansari is reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody. Consequent to what has been stated above, Md. Mohram Ansari @ Md. Considering the aforesaid scenario, the period of sentence imposed against the petitioner no. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 663 of 2005 – Md. Badruddin Ansari is reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody. Consequent to what has been stated above, Md. Mohram Ansari @ Md. Mahram Ansari, petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 659 of 2005 and Jafar Sheikh, petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 663 of 2005 are acquitted whereas the conviction of petitioner no. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 663 of 2005 is hereby sustained. The sentence imposed upon him is modified to the period already undergone. 8. These applications stand disposed of.