JUDGMENT :

All the aforesaid applications were heard individually and the same are being disposed of by this common order for the reason that in all the applications, the main order, which is under challenge, is order of cognizance dated 02.05.2017 passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Rail Police Force P.S. Case No. 1693 of 2014/CIS No. 3197(C) of 2014.

2. The petitioners and several others named and unknown were arrayed as accused in connection with the aforesaid police case with allegation that on 28.02.2014 about 100-125 people, having allegiance to a particular political party, had reached near the Sachivalaya Halt, Railway Station, to obstruct the railway movement. The informant, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sachivalaya Police Station, arrested some of them to frustrate the chances of obstruction in railway traffic.

3. The petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 909 of 2018 challenged the order of cognizance dated 02.05.2017 directly before this Court and the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 54783 of 2018 challenged the same order passed, on 02.05.2017, in an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the “Cr.P.C.”), directly before this Court whereas the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 54342 of 2018 had challenged the cognizance order dated 02.05.2017 before the learned Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 300 of 2018 and after dismissal of the criminal revision aforesaid on 04.08.2018 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous was filed, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, praying therein for quashment of order of the revisional court dated 04.08.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 02.05.2017.

4. The record reveals that an inquiry report in the form of a complaint (bearing CIS No. 3197(C) of 2014) was submitted purportedly in exercise of power under Section 180-A of the Railways Act, to the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, by the Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Patna Junction signed on 25.04.2017 and received on the record of the Court on 02.05.2017 and the impugned order of cognizance was passed. Later on, the entire matter was transferred to the Special Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Patna which was constituted for trial of cases against the Members of Parliament and the Members of Legislature.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.D. Sanjay, submits that the offence allegedly took place on 28.02.2014 whereas the complaint was filed on 25.04.2017 and cognizance was taken on 02.05.2017, after expiry of more than three years, for offences, under Sections 145, 146, 174(a) of the Railways Act, 1989 (in short the “Act”). As such, the cognizance was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. as maximum punishment provided under the aforesaid sections are of two years imprisonment, hence, the cognizance should have been taken within three years. His next contention is that for the offences alleged complaint should have been filed by “the officer authorized” under Section 180-A of the Act and the Magistrate could have taken cognizance only on complaint by the officer authorized in view of the bar under Section 180-F of the Act. Therefore, the institution of FIR was at the instance of incompetent person, as such, cognizance order was also against the mandate of Section 180-F of the Act. He next contended that none of the offences, for which cognizance has been taken, are disclosed on bare perusal of the first information report or the complaint petition. In other words, the ingredients of offences are not made out, hence, the impugned order suffers from non-application of judicial mind.

6. Learned counsel for the railways as well as the State opposed the prayer, however, does not dispute the legal issue involved in the case that cognizance has been taken after expiry of the period of limitation and without condoning the delay as empowered under Section 473 Cr.P.C. The opposite parties have not