JUDGMENT :- The petitioners-appellants have challenged the impugned order dated 06-05-1998 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, thereby, rejected their application for quashing the prosecution and also for discharge under Rule 256 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (Force Rules). Therefore, present Revision Petition.

2. The petitioners were working in Bhusawal Railway Division as constables for providing security to Station Master at Savada, whenever' he carried cash to the Bank at Savada. Admittedly, the petitioners fall within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (Railway Force Act) which defines "member of the force means" a person appointed to the Force under this Act. The word "Force" means the Railway Protection Force constituted under Section 3. The said section provides that "There shall be constituted and maintained by the Central Government an armed Force of the union to be called the Railway Protection Force for the better protection and security of railway property. The words "railway property" includes any goods, money or valuable security, or animal, belonging to, or in the charge or possession of, a railway administration. As per provisions of this Act it is the duty of member of the Force, apart from other, to protect and safeguard the railway property and further to do any act conductive to the better protection and security of railway property. This Act further gives protection to the members of the Force through Section 20, which is reproduced as under:

"20. Protection of Acts of members of the Force.- (1) In any suit or proceeding against any member of the Force for any act done by him in the discharge of his duties, it shall be lawful for him to plead that such act was done by him under the orders of a competent authority.

(2) Any such plea may be proved by the production of the order directing the act, and if it is so proved, the member of the Force shall thereupon be discharged from any liability in respect of the act so done by him, notwithstanding any defect in the jurisdiction of the authority which issued such order.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any legal proceeding, whether civil or criminal, which may lawfully be brought against any member of the Force for anything done or intended to be done under the powers conferred by, or in pursuance of, any provision of this Act or the rules thereunder shall be commenced within three months after the act complained of shall have been committed and not otherwise; and notice in writing of such proceeding and of the cause thereof shall be given to the person concerned and his superior officer at least one month before the commencement of such proceeding."

3. The relevant Force Rules has a foundation of Section 21 of Railway Force Act. Force Rule 256 as relied by the parties is also reproduced below.

"256. Protection where a member of the Force has opened fire: Whenever a member of the Force has opened fire in pursuance of his statutory duties of providing better protection and security to railway property and for matters connected therewith or in exercise of the right of defence of person or property, resulting in death or injury to the. other party, the result of the Magisterial or judicial inquiry instituted in this behalf shall be awaited. A member of the Forte shall ordinarily be prosecuted and or disciplinary proceedings instituted against him only when he is adversely commented upon in that inquiry or when the Court of Inquiry instituted under rule 265 finds his conduct suspicious. "

Undisputedly, the petitioners are "members of force" as contemplated under the Force Act and Force Rules. The petitioners were on duty on the date of incident i.e. 31-03-1997. They were deputed to guard the cash which was carried in the rickshaw by the Assistant Station Master of Savada Railway Station. On the way to the Bank, one Bhagwan alongwith & an unkown person stoppe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document