THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.517 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal against acquittal is directed against the judgment dated 07.08.2008 made by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, (Railways) Guntakal, in C.C.No.59 of 2005 whereby the respondent herein was tried for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 2 Brief facts are that during the course of investigation in Cr.No.LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER-25/Y&O- 2/GTL/2004 and SR-2/GTL/2004, the railway police apprehended the respondent herein while he was carrying one jute bag in his right hand and on suspicion he was detained by the right side of the road leading to Guntakal town bazaar near Roman Catholic Church. When enquired, it appears, the respondent made confession stating that he committed theft of one binocular micro scope from the laboratory of the railway hospital and he is taking the same to sell it out. The said confessional statement was recorded in the presence of mediators and thereafter a case in Cr.No.21 of 2004 was registered for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. Thereafter investigation was conducted and the charge sheet was also filed. During the course of trial, the railway officials, the mediators etc were examined as P.Ws.1 to 8 and Exs.P.1 to P.20 were marked. However, as the said evidence was not inspiring confidence, the trial court recorded acquittal. As stated supra, the same is questioned in this appeal. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The confession made before an officer of this nature under a special enactment is admissible in law. But, however, the police shall come forward and establish that the said confession is made voluntarily. The Inspector who conducted the search and found the respondent with a jute bag was examined as P.W.1. During the cross examination he categorically admitted that there is no signature of the respondent on pancha slips and he also stated that he did not obtain signatures of the respondent on Exs.P.3 and P.4 Further he stated that he has recorded the confessional statement of the respondent under Ex.P.5 at railway hospital after 7 PM. But he did not obtain signatures of the mediators who signed on Ex.P.2 and P.5. In the cross examination of P.W.2 he stated that the accused signed the said panchanama at a subsequent stage. From the above it is clear that the said confession cannot be accepted. Excepting the alleged confession, there is nothing on record to connect the respondent with the alleged theft property. The said aspect was gone into by the court below in holding that the respondent is not guilty of the offence, which in my considered view, is justified and no interference is called for. 5. Accordingly, this Criminal appeal is dismissed. ------------------ kvsn 11.06.2010