JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State. 3. This criminal revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 06.09.2014 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2014 whereby the learned appellate court below has been pleased to affirm the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.07.2014 passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. The petitioner was convicted and held guilty of the offence under Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act in R.P. Case No. 54 of 2004/Trial no. 2005 of 2014 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of one year. The learned appellate court upheld the judgment and sentence, but modified the period of simple imprisonment which the petitioner has to undergo in case of default in payment of the fine amount and reduced it to simple imprisonment of three months only. 4. During the course of arguments, it transpired that the petitioner was convicted for a period of one year and the petitioner had filed his case before this Court by filing Vakalatnama from jail and the petitioner was never enlarged on bail by this Court. Accordingly, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already served the sentence. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that the petitioner has already served the sentence, he would still press the present petition as the conviction itself is bad in law. Arguments of the petitioner 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has two points to argue in this case which according to him are pure questions of law. The learned counsel has referred to the evidence of PW-3 and submitted that PW-3 had prepared the report on examination of the seized articles and in cross-examination, PW-3 had stated that he does not possess any certificate for expert examination. The learned counsel submitted that in absence of certificate of expert examination, the evidence of PW-3 could not have been relied upon. Accordingly, he submitted that the conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The learned counsel submitted that in absence of certificate of expert examination, the evidence of PW-3 could not have been relied upon. Accordingly, he submitted that the conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in (2001) 3 PLJR 803 . The learned counsel has relied upon para-9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment. 7. On the second point, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is mandatory provision regarding preparation of particular register of the Malkhana of the Railways and Malkhana register having not been exhibited, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained. He has relied upon the page 2 of the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 804 and 801 of 2014. He submits that the said judgment is based on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the judgment reported in The State/Railway Protection Force vs. Raju, 2014 SCC Online Del. 575, wherein it has been held that the procedures outlined under Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, are mandatory. Arguments of the Opposite Party-State 8. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, has submitted that the date, time, manner and the place of occurrence in the instant case has been fully established by the prosecution. She also submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below after scrutinizing the evidences on record. There is no illegality or perversity calling for any interference in the impugned judgments in revisional jurisdiction. She also submits that alleged violation of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in revisional jurisdiction and the point by itself cannot be said to be a pure question of law. Findings of this court 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the written complaint of Sri. Findings of this court 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the written complaint of Sri. A.P. Yadav, S.I. RPF Post, Dhanbad before the Inspector, I/C, RPF Post, Dhanbad alleging therein that on 29.07.2004, on receipt of source information regarding tempering/lifting of Railway fitting as well as lifting of Railway lines by lifter between Pradhan Kanta and Rakhitpur Station, the Complainant alongwith C.P. Sinha, K.N. Sinha, S. Dubey proceeded for Pradhan Kanta Railway Station at about 02:35 A.M. and reached there at 03:15 A.M. and moved towards Rakhitpur railway Station through Railway track. It was alleged that at about 04:20 A.M. the raiding party saw that from a distance of 25/26 yards of line cabin, one person having something on his shoulder was coming towards them in suspicious manner. Seeing this, the Complainant surrounded the said person and apprehended him red-handed at about 4:35 hours nearby railway line cabin. On demand, the person showed the contents of the bag carried by him on his shoulder and 02 nos. of railway fish plates, 4 nos. of nuts and bolts and one wrench of iron made length about one foot was recovered from his possession. On interrogation, the person disclosed his identity as Karu Chouhan (the petitioner herein). He failed to produce any legal documents, rather he confessed his guilt and also showed the place from where he had taken the said railway fish plate and other materials. The recovered articles were seized at the spot in presence of available witnesses and a seizure list was prepared at 04:45 A.M. The value of the stolen property has been shown to be Rs. 1,200/- in the F.I. Sheet. 10. On the basis of the written Complaint, the case was registered as R.P.F. Post Case No. 22/2004 dated 29.07.2004 under Section 3 of RP (UP) Act and Section 153 of Indian Railways Act against the petitioner. 11. After completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer on 13.09.2004, submitted Prosecution Report against the petitioner under Section 3 of RP (UP) Act and accordingly, the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of RP (UP) Act on 13.09.2004. 11. After completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer on 13.09.2004, submitted Prosecution Report against the petitioner under Section 3 of RP (UP) Act and accordingly, the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of RP (UP) Act on 13.09.2004. On 29.04.2014, charge under Section 3 of RP (UP) Act was framed against the petitioner which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 05 witnesses to substantiate its case. They are PW-1 Sudarshan Dubey, PW-2 Kashi Nath Singh, PW-3 Abnish Kumar, PW-4 Chandan Prasad Singh and PW-5 Arjun Prasad Yadav. The prosecution exhibited the Seizure List as Exhibit-1, Signature of PW-2 on Seizure List as Exhibit-1/1, Expert Opinion as Exhibit-2, Written Report as Exhibit-3, F.I. Sheet as Exhibit-4, confessional statement of the petitioner as Exhibit-5, Map of P.O. as Exhibit-6, Theft Report as Exhibit-7 and Prosecution Report as Exhibit-8 and the specimen of the seized fish plate as Material Exhibit-1. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 09.04.2014. The petitioner has not examined any witness in his defence. 12. This Court further finds that after taking into consideration the evidences on record, the learned courts below have recorded concurrent and consistent findings of facts that the petitioner was arrested at the spot on 29.07.2004, the seized articles were railway property and were recovered from his possession, the petitioner did not produce any paper for those articles and all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and they have identified the petitioner in court. 13. So far as the point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding PW-3 not having a certificate for expert examination as stated by him in the cross-examination is concerned, this Court finds that merely because PW-3 did not have certificate for expert examination, the same by itself is not fatal to the prosecution case. This court is of the considered view that the evidence is required to be read as a whole. The evidence of PW-3 reveals that he had not only examined and identified the articles as railway property but has also stated that they were serviceable. This is sufficient to show that the PW-3 had special knowledge about the seized property. This court is of the considered view that the evidence is required to be read as a whole. The evidence of PW-3 reveals that he had not only examined and identified the articles as railway property but has also stated that they were serviceable. This is sufficient to show that the PW-3 had special knowledge about the seized property. This is over and above the settled law that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence in revisional jurisdiction against concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned courts below and coming to a different finding in absence of any perversity. This is more so on account of the fact that the recovered articles were two fish plates with four nuts-bolts and one wrench and the seizure of these goods has been fully supported by the other prosecution witnesses also, who have fully supported the prosecution case. This Court also finds that the prosecution witnesses have also stated in their evidence that the present petitioner had also confessed his guilt before them. 14. This Court finds that so far as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sahdeo Ram and Others vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (3) PLJR 803 is concerned, in that case the so called expert had gone to the RPF post and had examined the seized coal and had given a certificate which was exhibited but he did not depose that the said property was railway property and the certificate indicated that he had visually examined the coal. In this back ground it was held that the certificate granted by the witness cannot prove the essential fact that the seized coal was railway property. The said judgment of Patna High Court was passed in the peculiar facts of the case which does not apply to the facts of the present case in the backdrop of the clear evidence of PW-3 on the identification of the seized property. 15. So far as the other argument of the petitioner regarding non-exhibiting the Malkhana Register etc. is concerned, this Court finds that although Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that maintenance of register is mandatory, but there is no such law that in absence of exhibiting such register, the entire prosecution case has to fail. 15. So far as the other argument of the petitioner regarding non-exhibiting the Malkhana Register etc. is concerned, this Court finds that although Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that maintenance of register is mandatory, but there is no such law that in absence of exhibiting such register, the entire prosecution case has to fail. This Court further finds that no such point was ever taken by the petitioner before the learned courts below and it is being raised for the first time in revisional jurisdiction. 16. After going through the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the Judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Devendra Halder @ Dewanand Halder and Another vs. State of Jharkhand in Criminal Revision No. 804 of 2014, disposed of on 20.12.2019 is based upon the ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of The State/Railway Protection Force vs. Raju 2014, SCC Online Del. 575. From the perusal of the judgment of Devendra Halder @ Dewanand Halder and another in Criminal Revision No. 804 of 2014, disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court on 20.12.2019 (supra), it is apparent that even the seizure list was not provided to the accused who were running the shop and the godown and the whole factum of seizure was itself doubtful and it is not clear as to the stage when such point was raised by the accused of the said case. 17. This Court further finds that in the case of The State/Railway Protection Force vs. Raju, 2014 SCC Online Del. 575, a petition seeking leave to appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Delhi Court against the judgment dated 09.10.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting the accused therein for the offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. In the said case, the Hon’ble Delhi Court observed that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate analyzed the requirements of maintenance of records and registers and opined that the failure by the prosecution to bring on record the original DD entries concerning the departure of the RPF officials for patrolling duty as well as the original DD entries concerning recovery of the case property, rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The Hon’ble Delhi Court was of the view that when the question arises whether an RPF officer was on patrolling duty at a particular point of time when the suspect was apprehended , the burden would be upon the RPF to prove before the court by producing such records and registers in original that the movement of RPF officers involved in the arrest is reflected in the register maintained for that purpose and any violation of the procedure would result in benefit of doubt to the accused. This Court finds that the observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of The State/Railway Protection Force (supra) affirmed the order of acquittal of the accused. 18. In the present case there is no such question as to whether the RPF officers, who arrested the petitioner were on patrolling duty at that particular point of time. No such point or issue was ever raised by the petitioner before the learned courts below and this court cannot permit the petitioner to raise such point for the first time in revisional jurisdiction. In the present case the date, time, manner and the place of occurrence is fully established by the prosecution and there is concurrent finding of fact by the learned courts below upon full appreciation of the materials on record. Accordingly, the ratio of judgment of Devendra Halder @ Dewanand Halder and Another vs. State of Jharkhand in Criminal Revision No. 804 of 2014, disposed of by this court on 20.12.2019 (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. 19. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the instant case and are not helpful to the petitioner. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the three ingredients of Section 3 of RP (UP) Act in State of Maharashtra vs. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale and Others, (1979) 4 SCC 23 , which are required to be established by the prosecution, as under: (i) the property-in-question should be railway property. (ii) it should reasonably be suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. (iii) it should be found or proved that the accused was or had been in possession of that property. 21. (ii) it should reasonably be suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. (iii) it should be found or proved that the accused was or had been in possession of that property. 21. This court finds that all the aforesaid three ingredients have been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt for which there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned courts below. 22. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and the arguments advanced on the points, as argued by the petitioner, do not indicate any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned court below and upheld by the learned appellate court do not call for any interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Over and above this, the fact remains that the petitioner has already served the sentence as imposed by the learned court below. 23. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. 24. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 25. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 26. Let the Lower Court’s Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 27. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX.”