Crl.L.P. 1/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. UK Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard M r. R Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused No.1, the respo ndent No.3 Bhrigu Shah although was served notice, is not represented. 2. The petitioner challenges the judgment dated 7.8.2010 in SR/CR No.84/05 rendered by the Court of the Special Railway Magistrate (Judicial), 1st Class, T insukia whereby acquittal is ordered for the two accused, Sushil Agarwal and Bhr igu Sah. But the second accused Dinesh Sah was convicted. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Goswami that the complainant Jayanta Das who is a Railway Protection Force (RPF) officer cannot be treated in a same footing as a police officer and therefore the evidence given by the complainant as PW.1 shou ld have been relied upon by the learned trial Court to rope in the acquitted acc used. He further submits that apart from the evidence of the co-accused, Sushil Agarwal is also implicated by other witnesses such as the PW.1. 4. Mr. R Dubey, learned counsel refers to a decision reported in AIR 1968 S C 832 in case of Haroom Haji Abdulla vs. State of Maharashtra to contend that pr osecution cannot be sustained on the sole evidence of a co-accused and independe nt corroborative evidence would be necessary. 5. But even while accepting the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Har oom Haji (Supra), I find that cogent evidence is available in the case to show t hat the stolen railway materials were recovered from the scrape yard of the accu sed No.1 Sushil Agarwal and that he had fled away from the scrape yard when the RPF personnel raided the place for stolen railway materials. 6. In the above circumstances and taking into account the provisions of Sec tion 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which permits consideration of confessi on of a co-accused and the corroborative evidence of the RPF personnel, I am inc lined to grant leave under Section 378 (3) of the CrPC to the complainant to cha llenge the acquittal judgment dated 7.8.2010. It is ordered accordingly. 7. This petitions stands disposed of with the above order.