ORDER : Heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 2. Accused is in revision challenging the order passed in C.C.No.933/2005 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore by Judgment dated 29.11.2011 whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'RP (UP) Act' for short) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.157/2011, on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mysore by judgment dated 04.02.2012. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under : Accused has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.04.2004 at about 10 a.m., in front of Diamond Gujari Shop, Dodda Gujari Market in Lashkar Mohalla, Mysore, accused was found in possession of one white plastic bag containing one number of B.G. brake block and one number of railway broken solar panel valued at Rs.1000/-without proper licence and therefore, the head of the raid party seized the same and drafted the mahazer and filed a report. There afterwards, case came to be registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act. The same was investigated and charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the aforesaid offence. 4. The presence of the accused was secured before the learned Magistrate and plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and as such, trial was held. 5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution in all examined 5 witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and relied on 12 documentary evidence which were marked and exhibited as Exs.P1 to 12 and material objects namely brake plate and solar panel marked as M.Os.1 and 2. 6. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein accused denied all the incriminatory circumstances found in the prosecution evidence. However, accused did not choose to lead any evidence nor place his version on record by examining himself or by placing necessary written submission as is contemplated under Section 313(5) Cr.P.C. 7. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein accused denied all the incriminatory circumstances found in the prosecution evidence. However, accused did not choose to lead any evidence nor place his version on record by examining himself or by placing necessary written submission as is contemplated under Section 313(5) Cr.P.C. 7. Thereafter, learned Magistrate heard the parties in detail and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence and sentenced as aforesaid. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.157/2011. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the parties in detail, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the accused is in the Revision Petition. 9. In the Revision Petition, the following grounds are raised: "1. The judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and appellate courts are wholly illegal and contrary to the facts of the case. 2. The courts below erred in holding that the prosecution has established the possession of Railway property by the accused without considering that the ingredients of the offence are not proved by the cogent evidence. 3. The courts below relied upon the official witnesses only without examining independent witnesses to base the conviction. 4. The courts belowerred in relying upon the evide of PW-1 and PW-2 which were full of contradiction. 5. The courts below failed to note that the MOs 1 & 2 recovered does not have special marks to say that they belonged to Railways. 6. The courts below erred in relying upon Ex.P-3 Mahazar wherein there is contradictions in the place of theft. 7. The courts below erred in relying upon the volunary statements of the accused as per Ex.P2 which is inadmissible under the provisions of Secs. 24 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and U/s 161 of Cr.P.C. 8. The Courts below erred in awarding of punishment of imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-which is harsh in the circumstances of the case." During the pendency of the Revision Petition, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner failed to appear before the Court and pursue the matter. The Courts below erred in awarding of punishment of imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-which is harsh in the circumstances of the case." During the pendency of the Revision Petition, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner failed to appear before the Court and pursue the matter. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 16.11.2021, appointed Sri B.S. Venkatanarayana as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. Learned Amicus Curiae took time on the previous occasion that he would find out the whereabouts of the Revision Petitioner, if any. However, he fairly submits that the registered post issued by him returned with an endorsement that 'no such person' and he is unable to contact the Revision Petitioner and argued the matter by reiterating the grounds urged in the Revision Petition and contended that both the courts have wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the Revision Petition. 10. Per contra, Sri V.K.Narayanaswamy representing the Union of India, Railway Protection Force, supported the impugned judgment by contending that admittedly, the head of the raid party and other team members did not posses any previous animosity or enmity against the accused to falsely implicate in the case and seizure stands proved by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record and sought for dismissal of the Revision Petition. 11. In view of the rival contentions and having regard to the scope of the Revisional jurisdiction, the following points would arise for consideration: "1. Whether the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate that accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3(a) RP (UP) Act, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court is suffering from legal infirmity, perversity and thus, calls for interference? 2. Whether the sentence is excessive?" 12. In the case on hand, seizure of MOs.1 and 2 under Ex.P1 stands proved by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. PW.1 M. Marilingu being the authorized officer found the accused near Diamond Gujari Shop at Dodda Gujari Market, Lashkar Mohalla, Mysore, wherein the accused holding a polythin cover containing MOs.1 and 2. Being suspicious about the same, head of the party raided him and seized the material objects as MOs.1 and 2 and there was no proper explanation and there afterwards, he was brought before the Railway Protection Force Police Station and case came to be registered. 13. Being suspicious about the same, head of the party raided him and seized the material objects as MOs.1 and 2 and there was no proper explanation and there afterwards, he was brought before the Railway Protection Force Police Station and case came to be registered. 13. Before the Court, the contents of the mahazer has been reiterated by PW.1 and other prosecution witnesses. It is pertinent to note that there is no previous enmity or animosity between the prosecution witnesses and accused. In the absence of any such previous enmity, why would PW.1 falsely implicate the accused that too by implanting MOs.1 and 2 is a question that remains unanswered by the defense. Further, MOs.1 and 2 are not freely available material and it is exclusively belonged to the railways. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the materials available on record and convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence and passed a proper sentence, which is the minimum sentence for the offence under Section 3(a) RP (UP) Act. 14. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court not only re-appreciated the materials available on record but also supplemented additional reasons to substantiate the finding reached by the learned trial Magistrate while dismissing the appeal. 15. This Court having limited Revisional jurisdiction, reconsidered the entire materials available on record. On such reconsideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that materials available on record does not warrant interference in the Revisional jurisdiction in the well reasoned orders passed by both the Courts and accordingly, point No.1 is answered. 16. Insofar as sentence is concerned, learned Magistrate has ordered minimum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act. No case is made out by the Revision Petitioner to reduce the same. In fact, if the Court is required to reduce the minimum sentence, it has to assign further reasons for the same. No such further reasons are forthcoming and no mitigating circumstances are also placed on behalf of the Revision Petitioner. Accordingly, the effort made by the learned Amicus Curiae to get in touch with the Revision Petitioner has also resulted in futile exercise inasmuch as registered cover sent by the Amicus Curiae is returned with an endorsement 'no such person'. No such further reasons are forthcoming and no mitigating circumstances are also placed on behalf of the Revision Petitioner. Accordingly, the effort made by the learned Amicus Curiae to get in touch with the Revision Petitioner has also resulted in futile exercise inasmuch as registered cover sent by the Amicus Curiae is returned with an endorsement 'no such person'. Under such circumstance, the sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is just sentence and accordingly, it requires no interference by this Court in this revision. Hence, point No.2 is answered in negative and pass the following: ORDER : Revision Petition sans merit and hereby dismissed. Time is granted till 15.01.2022 for the Revision Petitioner to surrender before the trial Magistrate.