Debabrata Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This Rule was issued to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 3 of Ordinance 19 of 1944 and the sentence passed thereunder should not be set aside. The petitioner was tried by a Magistrate of the First class, at Howrah. The prosecution case was that the petitioner and another were found In possession of some ball bearings which were said to be the properties of the railway and that the petitioner and his coaccused failed to offer satisfactory explanation of their possession of those goods. In these circumstances they were charged with having committed an offence under Section 3 of Ordinance 19 of 1944 (Railway Stores Unlawful Possession Ordinance 1944). Section 3 of the Ordinance is in these words: "Whoever is found or is proved to have been in possession of any article of railway stores shall, if the Court sees reasonable grounds for believing such article to be or to have been the property of the administration of any federal railway, unless he proves that the article came into his possession lawfully, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both". Section 2 defines railway stores as including any article used or intended to be used in the construction, operation or maintenance of a railway.
(2.) The prosecution called evidence to prove the petitioner's possession of the ballbearings which were exhibited in Court.
(3.) The petitioner and his coaccused denied the charge and claimed that the goods which were the subject matter of the charge had been purchased in good faith by them; in other words, an explanation was offered of the possession of these goods by the petitioner.;