JUDGMENT : No one appears for the petitioner, however, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State is present. 2. As this matter is pending since 2008, the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.08.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2007 by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.01.2007 passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj in R.P. Case No. 22 of 2002 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year has been affirmed. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that an information was received about storage of huge quantity of stolen railway iron materials in the shop cum godown of the petitioner. A raid was conducted in which two persons were apprehended namely, Ranjeet Dangi and Raj Kumar Mahto. No document could be produced regarding the recovered railway iron materials. Both the apprehended accused had confessed about the petitioner being the owner of the shop cum godown. The stolen iron material was subsequently seized and the seizure list was prepared. Based on the aforesaid allegations RPF/Post/Barkakana Case No. 5 of 2002 was instituted. After conducting an inquiry, the inquiry report was submitted to three accused persons pursuant to which cognizance was taken and thereafter charge was framed under Section 3(a) of the R.P.U.P. Act to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P.U.P. Act along with the co-accused Ranjeet Dangi whereas the accused Raj Kumar Mahto was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 6. In course of trial, 6 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 – S. Thakur was not produced for cross-examination after charge as such his evidence is to be discarded while deciding the case. P.W. 2 – Sheodani Sharma Rakesh is an expert who had examined the various railway articles seized. He has stated that on examination, he had found the articles to be railway property which were serviceable and not available in the open market. This witness has proved his report which has been marked as Exhibit 3. P.W. 2 – Sheodani Sharma Rakesh is an expert who had examined the various railway articles seized. He has stated that on examination, he had found the articles to be railway property which were serviceable and not available in the open market. This witness has proved his report which has been marked as Exhibit 3. In cross-examination, he has stated that the articles were not sealed. P.W. 3 – Chandan Prasad Sinha was the member of the raiding party, who has stated that in course of raid, 18 railway items were recovered from the godown. He has also stated that 2 persons were apprehended who did not produce any document pertaining to the articles. P.W. 4 – Ajay Kumar Singh was also a member of the raiding party in the shop cum godown of the petitioner. He has stated that a huge quantity of railway materials were recovered including wagon fittings, hosepipe clips, brake block etc. No papers could be produced by the apprehended accused persons. In cross-examination, he has stated that the articles seized were not sealed. P.W. 5 – Pankaj Prakash is the Investigating Officer who had visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. He had also recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the petitioner. This witness has got the articles examined by experts and thereafter inquiry report was submitted. P.W. 6 – Raj Kumar Chaudhary is also an expert who has examined some of the seized articles and found them to be serviceable railway property which are not available in the open market and also not auctionable. 7. The defence has examined 2 witnesses in support of its case. D.W. 1 – Harihar Mahto is a seizure list witness who has stated that he has put his signature on a blank paper. He has further stated that he has not seen any article. D.W. 2 – Mahgi Mahto is also a seizure list witness who has stated about his signature being taken on the blank paper. He has also stated that no search of the godown was made. 8. The defence has taken a plea that all the witnesses are either the members of the Railway Protection Force or the railway employees and therefore, they being interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be relied upon. He has also stated that no search of the godown was made. 8. The defence has taken a plea that all the witnesses are either the members of the Railway Protection Force or the railway employees and therefore, they being interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be relied upon. A further plea has been taken that no independent witness has been examined and no weightage has been given to the defence witnesses. 9. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer. 10. It appears that the defence has tried to dilute the prosecution case by getting the seizure list witnesses examined as defence witnesses, who have denied to have witnessed any seizure. However, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does suggest that from the shop cum godown of the petitioner, huge quantity of serviceable railway materials were recovered for which no authority or document could be produced. The experts have been examined as P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 and both have stated about the seized articles being railway property and the same were not auctionable and therefore, the seized articles could not have been procured from the market or at the time of auction and it has been established beyond doubt that the same were stolen railway properties. The members of the raiding party have also supported the prosecution case and the plea of the defence that the witnesses are interested witnesses is negated simply in view of the fact that there appears sufficient corroboration in the evidence of the said witnesses to prove the guilt of the petitioner. Merely because the witnesses are the members of the Railway Protection Force and railway employees, the same cannot dilute their evidence in view of the fact that the seized articles were examined by the experts and were found to be railway properties which are not available in the open market. It has also consistently been established that the shop cum godown from which the articles were recovered belongs to the petitioner and the defence has failed to elicit any contradiction which would belie such assertion. 11. In the circumstances narrated above, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P.U.P. Act which was affirmed in appeal. The same is hereby sustained. 12. 11. In the circumstances narrated above, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P.U.P. Act which was affirmed in appeal. The same is hereby sustained. 12. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has remained in custody for some time and is facing the rigors of the prosecution case for the last 16 years. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 13. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.