Back
High Court Of Calcutta
P. K. BISWAS
MONTEK SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. R. 1030 Of 2001
Decided On : 10/08/2002
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE ACT - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RPF PERSONNEL - NOTICE REQUIREMENT - SECTION 20(3) - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION: Initiation of legal proceedings against RPF personnel under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 requires one month's notice to the accused or their superior officer as per Section 20(3) of the Act. This notice requirement applies to both civil and criminal proceedings and is mandatory. Failure to provide such notice renders the legal proceedings invalid.
Fact of the Case:
A Railway Protection Force (RPF) officer and personnel were accused of assaulting hawkers at Howrah Station. The hawkers filed a complaint against the RPF personnel under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the RPF personnel had illegally detained and assaulted them. The RPF personnel challenged the legality of the proceedings against them, arguing that the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, were not complied with. They contended that the initiation of legal proceedings without giving them one month's notice was a violation of their statutory rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proceedings against the RPF personnel were indeed legal proceedings and that the initiation of such proceedings without complying with the notice requirement under Section 20(3) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, was a clear violation of the law. The court found that the RPF personnel were acting in the course of their official duties when they attempted to prevent unauthorized hawkers from operating in the railway platform area. Therefore, the court quashed the proceedings against the RPF personnel.
Issues: 1. Whether the initiation of legal proceedings against RPF personnel under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, requires one month's notice to the accused or their superior officer as per Section 20(3) of the Act. 2. Whether the notice requirement under Section 20(3) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. 3. Whether the failure to provide such notice renders the legal proceedings invalid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 20(3) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, and held that it clearly states that no legal proceedings, whether civil or criminal, can be initiated against any superior officer or member of the force for anything done or intended to be done under the powers conferred by or in pursuance of any provision of the Act or rules thereunder, unless one month's notice has been given to the accused or their superior officer. 2. The court reasoned that the notice requirement under Section 20(3) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, is mandatory and applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. This is because the purpose of the notice requirement is to protect the RPF personnel from frivolous and vexatious legal proceedings and to ensure that they have sufficient time to prepare their defense. 3. The court held that the failure to provide the required notice renders the legal proceedings invalid. This is because the initiation of legal proceedings without complying with the notice requirement is a violation of the RPF personnel's statutory rights and amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the RPF personnel's application and quashed the proceedings against them. The court held that the proceedings were illegal and invalid because they were initiated without complying with the notice requirement under Section 20(3) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957.
( 1 ) IN revisional application No. 1030 of 2001 applicant petitioner Montek Singh has come up before this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceeding of Howrah G. R. P. Case No. 118 dated 25. 04. 01 under sections 143/347/323/324/354/506 of the Indian Penal Code (GRPGR No. 139/2001) pending before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah.
( 2 ) THE aforesaid petitioner/applicant Montek Singh by filing another application in C. R. R. No. 1031 of 2001 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also come up seeking to quash the proceedings of Howrah G. R. P. Case No. 119 dated 25. 04. 2001 under sections 147/148/149/323/324/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah.
( 3 ) SINCE common question of law and fact are involved in these two applications those are taken up for disposal analogously by this single order.
( 4 ) THE facts leading to the filing of these two applications may be summarised as follows:
( 5 ) THE petitioner Montek Singh is a member of the Railway Protection Force now holding the post of Assistant Security Commissioner and is attached to the Howrah Railway Protection Force.
( 6 ) ON the basis of the complaint lodged by O. P. No. 2 with the Officer-in-Charge of Howrah GRPS, the impugned proceedings being G. R. P. Case No. 118 dated 25. 4. 2001 and G. R. P. Case No. 119 dated 25. 4. 2001 were registered for investigation of an offence committed by the petitioner and others punishable under different sections of Indian Penal Code alleging, inter alia, that the de facto complainant is a hawker at the Howrah Station. At around 4. 30 p. m. on 25. 4. 2001 a lady hawker namely Mira Roy belonging to CITU Union was hawking in the Platform No. 3 of Howrah Station and at that time one Mr. Chawla, S. I. of R. P. F. caught hold of Mira Roy and thereafter arrested her.
( 7 ) THE de facto complainant upon witnessing such incident informed the other hawkers and they thereafter protested against the treatment meted out to Mira Roy and on the face of such protest, the RPF Officer and Personnel became agitated and started abusing the de facto complainant and other hawkers. The incident was thereafter informed to the local leader who came with the other hawkers and started protesting against such behaviour of the RPF Personnel. About 10 minutes thereafter, the RPF Officer and Personnel of the said post being armed with lathis, charged the sloganeering hawkers and the de facto complainant suffered injuries on his head and also in different parts of the body and other co-hawkers of the de facto complainant were also injured.
( 8 ) IT has been alleged by the petitioner that the allegations levelled against him are all false and motivated and the instant proceedings are two of such proceedings out of the series of proceedings which have been instituted against RPF Personnel by the unauthorised hawkers at Howrah Station against whom the RPF had taken steps to prevent them from hawking their goods in an illegal and unauthorised manner.
( 9 ) IT has further been alleged that pursuant to the aforesaid agitation, by a group of hawkers affiliated to CITU and in view of the threats, given by their leader, that if any further arrest was made in the Howrah Station, the RPF Personnel will be bodily harmed, the RPF. Personnel thereafter lodged a complaint with the Howrah GRPS and the same was received by the Howrah Railway Police and even after receipt of that No. G. D. Entry was recorded or a case was started against the hawkers. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that the instant proceedings had been initiated against the RPF personnel with the sole intention of preventing any action against the hawkers for their attack upon the RPF Personnel and the same was initiated in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 20 (3) of the Railway Protection Force A
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
