JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for non-applicant.

2. The applicant was convicted for offence under sections 145 and 146 of the Railways Act, 1989 and was sentenced to 20 days simple imprisonment on each count as also fine of Rs. 400/- on the first count and fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count. His substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The applicant challenged the conviction in the Court of Sessions and the Court of Session dismissed the appeal. The applicant challenges the concurrent findings of two courts.

3. Learned Advocate for the applicant has urged before me that even admitting the prosecution case in toto, no case of conviction under sections 145 and 146 of the Railways Act, 1989 is made out. Since firstly the incident in question did not take place either in the railway carriage or upon any part of the railway, as required under section 145 of the said Act and secondly at the time when the incident took place, it cannot be said that the Assistant Engineer was obstructed or prevented while in the discharge of his duties since at that time the Assistant Engineer was going to sit in the jeep in order to go to home. Therefore, accordingly to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the conviction and sentence on both counts is illegal in law and is required to be set aside.

4. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, argued that the Assistant Engineer had gone for duty to Biswa Railway Bridge and from there he was to sit in the jeep in order to go to home. This set of fact according to him would establish that the Assistant Engineer was obstructed or prevented by the applicant in the discharge of his duties. He also urged before me that even if sections 145 and 146 of the Railways Act is not applicable, the applicant is guilty for the offence under section 341 I.P.C. and also under section 506 I.P.C. since the applicant had threatened the Assistant Engineer, Complainant (P.W. 1) that he should come to Akola Bazar and he would see him there.

5. The prosecution case is that on 15-1-1996, at about 6.15 P.M., Assistant Engineer, complainant (P.W. 1) was going to sit in the front seat and at that time the applicant was trying to enter the jeep which was objected by the Assistant Engineer, complainant (P.W. 1). The applicant got down from the jeep and started shouting and threatened the complainant that let him come to Akola Bazar and he would see him. According to the complainant (P.W. 1) he had gone to Biswa Railway Station for work and after completion of work, he came near the jeep for returning back home. This means that the complainant (P.W. 1) had already completed the discharge of his duties and he was only to return come and for that purpose he was sitting in the jeep. At that time, by no stretch of imagination, the complainant (P.W. 1) can be said to be on official duty. The question of application of section 146 of the Railways Act, which provides that if any person wilfully obstructs or prevents any railway servant in the discharge of his duties, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, would not arise. The incident in question did not take place either in the railway carriage or upon any part of the railway and the question of section 145 being attracted does not arise at all. I am surprised that neither the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railways), Bhusaval nor the Additional Sessions Judged bestowed any attention on these aspects. Until and unless the ingredients of offence under sections 145 and 146 of the Railways Act, 1989 are made out, the question of applicability of sections 145 and 146 would not arise at all. I do not, therefore, find any merit whatsoever in the submission made by the learned A.P.P. in this behalf. Likewise his contention that the applicant should be convicted under sections 341 and 506 of the I.P.C. is without

Click Here to Read the rest of this document