THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.173 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment, dated 21.08.2007 passed in C.C.No.346 of 2007 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby the accused were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’) and accordingly, they were acquitted. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal, may be stated as follows: On 04.11.2003, the Railway Protection Force (R.P.F.), Marripalem, found a Mini Van bearing No.AP31 T 1964 with iron scrap railway material and A.1 and A.2 were present therein. They seized the property by preparing a seizure list and basing on the confession statement made by A.1 and A.2, some other railway property was seized from the shop of A.3. The Junior Engineer of Railways examined the property and stated that it is exclusively used in the railways serviceable and not available in the local market. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet. 3. When a charge under Section 3(a) of the Act was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.29 were marked besides case property M.Os.1 to 18. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to show that the property seized from the possession of the accused is exclusively used in the railways and therefore, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. 6. The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Act? 7. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the railway property was seized from the possession of the accused and that P.W.10 examined them and issued certificate - Ex.P.9 stating that the property examined by him belonging to the railways serviceable and therefore, the prosecution made out the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, she prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 8. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under the law that the accused is presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. However, this Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence to know whether the findings are recorded on proper appreciation of evidence on record or any perverse finding was recorded or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or admissible evidence has been overlooked. In short, there must be substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. 9. For the offence under Section 3(a) of the Act, the prosecution must show that the property seized from the possession of the accused, is serviceable and exclusively used in the railways and does not available in the open market. Thereafter, burden shifts to the accused to rebut the same. The mediators, who were present at the time of seizure of certain properties from A.1 and A.2, did not support the case of the prosecution, but the evidence of railway officials shows the seizure of M.Os.1 to 4. Simply because the mediators did not support the case of the prosecution, it does not mean that their evidence has to be disbelieved. There is no law that the evidence of a police officer has to be disbelieved on the ground that he is the investigating officer, in-charge of the case. If his evidence is found to be acceptable, it can be acted upon. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of police officials with regard to the seizure of M.Os.1 to 5 from the possession of A.1 to A.3. The first item is CI blocks. But admittedly, no CI Blocks were seized from the possession of the accused. The second item is 6 bolts. There is no specific information to show that those bolts are exclusively used in the railways. Those bolts can be available in the open market. With regard to AC bearing plates and fishplates, it is not clear from the evidence of P.W.10 that the property examined by him and certified under Ex.P.9 are the self-same property, which was allegedly seized from the possession of A.1 and A.2. The prosecution has also not produced any register to show that these items were entered in the register maintained by the railways. It is not in dispute that whenever any property is received by the railway administration, the same will be entered in the registers relating to the concerned branch of railways. No theft report is filed to show that even articles have been committed theft. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the properties seized from the possession of the accused are exclusively used in the railways, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. Hence, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court, as there are no compelling or substantial reasons. 10. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 21.08.2007 in C.C.No.346 of 2007 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Visakhapatnam. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J 3rd FEBRUARY, 2010. kvni