IMPORTANT POINT
Initiation of inquiry for an offence inquired into under the Railway Property Act can be only on the basis of complaint by an officer of RPF; an enquiry report filed by an officer of RPF before Magistrate cannot be treated as a charge sheet within meaning of Section 173 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966-Sections 8 and 3-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 173 r/w Section 2(d) and 200-Offence of stealing Railway Cement-Inspector of RPF filing enquiry report before Magistrate-Accused seeking discharge on ground Inspector of RPF was not police officer within meaning of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. and charge sheet could not have been filed-Untenable-Inquiry report filed by Inspector of RPF could not be treated as charge sheet-It was a complaint-Initiation of inquiry under Railway Property Act only on basis of complaint by an officer of RPF-Trial Court rightly refused to discharge accused.
       Shri M.I. Khan, IPF/SPJ inquired the case and submitted the complaint before the Magistrate. Copy of the complaint has been annexed with this appeal as Annexure P-3. A perusal of Annexure P-3 unambiguously indicates that it was not a report within the meaning of Section 173 of the Code but a complaint filed before the Magistrate, obviously under Section 200 of the Code. The process against the accused appears to have been issued under Section 204 of the Code. By no stretch of imagination, Exhibit P-3 can be termed to be a report within the meaning of Section 173 of the Code. Merely because the inquiry was held by a member of the Force having some similar powers as are possessed by an investigating officer, would not make the complaint to be a report within the meaning of Section 173 of the Code. (Para 6)
       Section 2(d) of the Code emcompasses a police report also as a deemed complaint if the matter is investigated by a police officer regarding the case involving commission of a non-cognizance offence. In such a case, the report submitted by a police officer cannot be held to be without jurisdiction merely because proceedings were instituted by the police officer after investigation, when he had no power to investigate. An officer conducting an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the Act has not been invested with all powers of an officer incharge of a police station making an investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code. He has no power to file a charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned under Section 173 of the Code. The main purpose of the Act was to invest powers of investigation and prosecution of an offence relating to Railway property in the RPF in the same manner as in a case relating to the offences under the law dealing with excise and customs. The offences under the Act are non-cognizable which cannot be investigated by a police officer under the Code. The result is that initiation of inquiry for an offence inquired into under this Act can be only on the basis of a complaint by an officer of the Force, as was actually done in this case. (Paras 7 and 8)

JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.-Leave granted.

2. Respondents, who are the employees of the Railways, were caught red handed on 25.3.1987 while carrying away Railway Cement unlawfully for sale. Upon inquiry offences under The Railways Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were held proved against the accused persons. Inquiry Report (Complaint) under the Act was filed by M.I. Khan, Inspector, RPF, Samstipur, against the accused persons in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Samstipur. The accused persons filed applications before the Magistrate praying for their discharge on the ground that Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force, who submitted charge-sheet against them was not a "police officer" within the meaning of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and upon his report submitted in this court, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance. Their prayer was rejected by the Magistrate against which they filed petitions in the High Court for quashing the order of the Magistrate. The High Court allowed the petitions of the respondents-accused and quashed the proceedings pending against them before the Railway Magistrate, vide the order impugned in these appeals.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record and relevant provisions of the Act besides the Code.

4. Mr. P.S. Misra, the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondents has frankly conceded that the order of the High Court impugned in these appeals cannot be justified. He has, however, prayed that as the respondents-accused had raised various other contentions for quashing of the proceedings before the Magistrate, this Court may consider desirability of adjudicating such pleas or remand the case back to the High Court for decision on the points raised but not decided.

5. Section 3 of the Act provides the penalty for unlawful possession of railway property. Section 6 authorises a superior officer or member of the Force to arrest any person who has been concerned in an offence punishable under the Act or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned without an order from the Magistrate and without a warrant. Section 7 provides that every person arrested under the Act, shall, if the arrest is made by a person other than the officer of the Force, to forward such person, without delay to the nearest officer of the Force. Section 8 of the Act provides :

"Inquiry how to be made against arrested persons.-(1) When any such person is arrested by an officer of the Force for an offence punishable under this Act or is forwarded to him under Section 7, he shall proceed to inquire into the charge against such persons.

(2) For this purpose the officer of the Force may exercise the same powers and shall be subject to the same provisions as the officer in charge of a police station may exercise and is subject to under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, when investigating a cognizable case:

Provided that-

(a) if the officer of the Force is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall either admit him to bail to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or forward him in custody to such Magistrate;

(b) if it appears to the officer of the Force that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall release the accused person on his executing a bond, with or without sureties as the officer of the Force may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, and shall make a full report of all the particulars of the case to his official superior."

6. In this case, after seizure of the Railway property and interrogation of the accused, Case Crime No. 14/87 under Section 3 of the Act was registered. As per statement of accu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 2041

IMPORTANT POINT Initiation of inquiry for an offence inquired into under the Railway Property Act can be only on the basis of complaint by an officer of RPF; an enquiry report filed by an officer of RPF before Magistrate cannot be treated as a charge sheet within meaning of Section 173 Cr.P.C.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Initiation of inquiry for an offence inquired into under the Railway Property Act can be only on the basis of complaint by an officer of RPF; an enquiry report filed by an officer of RPF before Magistrate cannot be treated as a charge sheet within meaning of Section 173 Cr.P.C.