JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 20.08.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1998 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.03.1998 passed by the learned Railway Magistrate, Chaibasa in C/7 Case No. 304 of 1993 convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 3(A) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act has been affirmed and the sentence has been modified by the learned appellate court from S.I. For 4 months to the period already undergone in custody. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 08.12.1993 at about 1:30 P.M. officials of the Railway Protection Force had gone to village Paramaljori to inquire about the theft of PNT cables and from the house of the petitioner in the boundary, the lower portion of vacuum cylinder was found present. In the house of the petitioner, the upper portion of the vacuum cylinder was found which was kept for storing paddy grains. The petitioner could not produce any document in support of such material and had subsequently admitted that same was brought from the railway wagon lying by the side of the railway track. The property was seized and thereafter the case being C/7 Case No. 304 of 1993 was instituted against the petitioner. After framing of charge, trial proceeded and after conclusion of trial, the learned Railway Magistrate, Chakradharpur vide judgment dated 23.03.1998 was pleased to convict the petitioner for the offence under Section 3 (A) of the RP (UP) Act and thereafter sentenced him to undergo S.I. For 4 months. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1998 in which vide judgment dated 20.08.2002, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa had confirmed the judgment of conviction, but had reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had not committed any offence under the provisions of Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act. Learned counsel further submits that there is no independent witness to the alleged seizure and the witnesses examined by the prosecution are all members of the Railway Protection Force and thus, being interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel further submits that there is no independent witness to the alleged seizure and the witnesses examined by the prosecution are all members of the Railway Protection Force and thus, being interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be relied upon. It has also been stated that it was never the intention of the petitioner to keep the vacuum cylinder in his house, rather the same was brought from the wagon which was found derailed. It has thus been submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and has supported the impugned judgments. 5. It appears that in course of trial, 4 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. CW 1 – Dina Nath Sharma is the Train Examiner who had examined the vacuum cylinder and found it to be railway property. This witness has proved the certificate which was marked as Exhibit 1. C.W. 2 – Baliram Singh was the member of the raiding party who had stated that the lower portion of the vacuum cylinder was found inside the boundary wall whereas the upper portion of the vacuum cylinder was found in the house of the petitioner. This witness has further stated that the petitioner could not produce any paper with respect to ownership of the seized material. This witness had seized the article which were marked as Exhibit 1. C.W. 3 – Dina Nath Thakur was also a member of the raiding party who has stated on similar terms as has been stated by C.W. 2 – Baliram Singh. C.W. 4 – Baliram Singh was also a member of the raiding party who had inspected the house of the petitioner and had found 2 portion of the vacuum cylinder, one inside the house and one inside the boundary wall. He has also categorically stated about non-production by the petitioner of any valid papers about the railway property. P.W. 4 has identified the signature on the seizure list and had also identified the signature of the petitioner over the same which were variously marked as Exhibit 2 and 2/3. 6. He has also categorically stated about non-production by the petitioner of any valid papers about the railway property. P.W. 4 has identified the signature on the seizure list and had also identified the signature of the petitioner over the same which were variously marked as Exhibit 2 and 2/3. 6. The witnesses were all railway personnel and their evidences have categorically established the fact that the vacuum cylinder which was admittedly a railway property as per its examination by C.W. 1 was found in the house of the petitioner which was unlawful and the petitioner did not produce any paper to suggest that it had been validly purchased or has been kept in the house on the basis of some legal transaction. The petitioner as it is revealed from his confessional statement was at the time of the incident an employee of a railway contractor and his work was to lay stone chips in the railway track. It is also admitted fact that the vacuum cylinder was taken from a wagon which was derailed and which was lying beside the railway track. The question of the petitioner having kept the vacuum cylinder in his own house in good faith cannot be ruled out, but the evidences as has been discussed above do suggest that the railway properties were unauthorisedly kept in the house of the petitioner thereby attracting the penal provisions under the Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned courts below had rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 3 A of the RPUP Act and the same is hereby sustained. 7. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner and which has been reduced to the period undergone seems to be on non-consideration of the Probation of Offenders Act. The act of the petitioner does not seem to be a deliberate act to cause loss to the Railways and such circumstances definitely would entitle the petitioner to be considered for giving benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, the petitioner is given benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act by admonishing him for the act as alleged. The sentence awarded by the learned appellate court is therefore modified and while upholding the judgment of conviction, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is however modified as indicated above. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is given benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act by admonishing him for the act as alleged. The sentence awarded by the learned appellate court is therefore modified and while upholding the judgment of conviction, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is however modified as indicated above. 8. This application stands dismissed with the modification in sentence.