ORDER:- This is a revision application filed by the State of Maharashtra against the order passed by the Railway Magistrate, Nagpur, praying that the order passed by him be set aside and the bail granted by the Railway Magistrate in Crime No. 22 of 1974 be set aside and the accused i.e. the opponents be granted R. P. F. Police custody for a period of a week as early as possible.

2. It appears to be a composite order comprising of three things. First we shall consider the first order passed by the Railway Magistrate about which a grievance has been made in this revision application.

3. The facts necessary to appreciate the allegations are that the Opponents 1 to 3 were serving as Rakshaks in R.P.F. force attached to the Nagpur Central Railway.

4. On February 24, 1974, these three Rakshaks were on duties in the yard, where a wagon is alleged to have been broken open and a theft of two cloth bales is alleged to have taken place. It is the allegation of the prosecution that these Rakshaks, with the aid of certain persons, broke open the lock and committed theft of two cloth bales. On February 28, 1974, Rakshak Mohammed Ali, who is opponent No. 3, along with Kishorilal was proceeding to Bhopal along with the stolen cloth bales two in numbers. It appears that Mohammadali and Kishorilal were apprehended and Kishorilal ran away but Mohammad Ali was arrested. After his arrest, after obtaining necessary search warrant, the houses of other Rakshaks were searched and certain property which is alleged to have been stolen from that wagon, viz., the cloth bales, was found in the houses of these Opponents Nos. 1 and 2. On these allegations on the very day i.e., February 28, 1974, these three Rakshaks were arrested by the R. P. F. Police S. I. or Inspector and were produced on the next day within 24 hours, i.e., on March 1, 1974, before the Railway Magistrate, Nagpur. While producing the accused-opponent before the Railway Magistrate, a copy of the diary was attached showing what were the steps during the investigation taken by the Inspector and why police custody of these opponents was necessary. It was prayed that the police custody be granted because the accused have to be interrogated, some property has to be recovered from them and it has to be found out whether there are also other conspirators along with these accused who have taken part in the crimes. The learned Magistrate without applying his mind to the diary, held that there was no provision for R. P. F. police custody and hence he rejected the application. It would, therefore, be seen from the order of the learned Magistrate that in his opinion as notice custody is granted to the Police Officer investigating the offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, such police custody cannot be granted to an R. P. F. Police Officer investigating the crimes under the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The learned Magistrate appears to be under the impression that there is no specific provision in the above mentioned Act and as such police custody could not be granted. Hence he remanded the accused to the Magisterial custody till March 7, 1974. In the meanwhile it appears an application for bail was preferred by the opponents and he released them on bail.

5. The first question that would have to be considered is whether the order passed by the learned Magistrate holding that there is no provision for R P. F. Police custody is consistent with the provisions of the Act or not. In my opinion the learned Magistrate has not read the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and especially Section 8 thereof. This special enactment is made because it was found that the railway property was stolen on a large scale and in order to bring the offenders to book, special measure was enacted in the year 1966 under which severe punishment is inflicted if a person is found and established to be in unlawful possession of the railway property. Section 6 o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document