HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.297 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner-appellant- accused(for short the accused) against judgment, dated 12.08.2003, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 1998 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kurnool, confirming judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.78 of 1994 by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore, whereby and where under the accused was convicted under section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. Heard. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: The accused Bangaru Prasad, is working as Fitter in IOW Office, Donakonda. On 20.02.1994 when the complainant in the case along with his staff was moving on the platform at Donakonda railway station he noticed the accused carrying a hand bag in a suspicious manner and detained him and verified the contents of the hand bag, and found in it one brass hydrent volve weighing about 17 kgs and when enquired him, he failed to give proper explanation. The accused did not possess any valid receipt or voucher for the said railway property. He was hence arrested and the property was seized and a report of it was prepared. After following the due procedure prescribed, the complainant registered the case in Cr.No.1/94 against the accused under Section 3(a) of RP UP Act. On 21.02.1994 the accused was produced before the Court for judicial remand. Hence the charge. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined P.W.1 and mar9ked Exs.P1 to P8 and MO1. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and Ex.D1 was marked. The trial Court after proper appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged and convicted the accused as stated above. It is the plea of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there was a delay of two days in giving the corresponding report to the police and no register of attendance was produced with regard to making entries about the theft of property and the prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the property from the accused and also failed to establish the charge against the accused and consequently the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. I have gone through the record. There is clear evidence of loss of the property and the seizure of the property from the accused. There was no reason to foist a false case against him. I am satisfied that the courts below on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced and giving sound reasoning found that the accused committed the alleged offence and accordingly convicted him. It is pertinent to note here that the appellate Court set aside the imprisonment clause while retaining the fine clause. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 29th June, 2011. Rns