JUDGMENT :

SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

1. When Mintu Mallick stepped out of his home and hopped across to the Lake Gardens railway station on the morning of May 5, 2007 to take a train to workplace Sealdah station, little did he know that he had embarked on an ordeal that would last a decade and more and would haunt him for the rest of his life. Mallick was then enjoying the dual charge of Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court and Railway Magistrate, Sealdah. The Railways Magistrate's court in Sealdah is within the precincts of the station. According to Mallick, the particular Up Budge Budge-Sealdah local that he intended to take was late and, upon speaking to the locals who regularly availed of the suburban rail services on the route, he discovered that the train was invariably late. Mallick claims that he was also informed that the usual late running of such train was due to it stopping illegally somewhere after the New Alipore station when contraband material would be offloaded from the train and the drivers and guards played ball with smugglers to facilitate the spurious trade.

2. Mallick felt that as the Railway Magistrate posted at Sealdah, which housed the headquarters of the relevant suburban division, he had the authority to inquire into the matter and set the perceived wrong right. When the relevant train arrived at the Lake Gardens station at about 10.16 am, Mallick thought it fit to enquire of the driver as to the reasons for the delay and get to the bottom of what he perceived to be a malaise. He knocked on the door of the driver's cabin, was allowed entry therein upon disclosing his identity and travelled in the driver's cabin to Sealdah station. In course of the journey, Mallick apparently quizzed the driver as to the delay on that day and whether such delay was usual and the reasons therefor. Mallick claims that he did not get any satisfactory answer to his questions, whereupon he instructed the driver to contact the guard of the train and for both the driver and guard to report to the Railway Magistrate's court in Sealdah so that the matter could be appropriately addressed.

3. According to Mallick, the driver of the train was angry that he had to attend the Railway Magistrate's court or report on a matter that the driver thought was routine and not unusual. At the insistence of Mallick, the driver contacted the guard, but the driver made his feelings clear that he did not appreciate Mallick's intervention and Mallick got the impression that the driver would not pay heed to Mallick's request to report to the Railway Magistrate's court. It was in such circumstances, according to Mallick, that he directed the railway police immediately upon disembarking at Sealdah station to ensure that the driver and the guard of the train were presented before the Railway Magistrate's court. Mallick maintains that he did not instruct the railway police personnel to either arrest the guard or the driver or to take them to the police station within the Sealdah station, but the railway police personnel present informed him that the driver and the guard would be taken to the Railway Magistrate's court after certain formalities were completed by the police personnel. Mallick also asserts that the common room for guards and drivers at the Sealdah station was then adjacent to the railway police station, both being on the way to the Railway Magistrate's court from the platform at which the relevant train had terminated.

4. The guard and the driver were accompanied to the Railway Magistrate's court, whereupon they sought some time for submitting their reports. The relevant reports were submitted within half an hour, by which time Misc. Case No. 5 of 2007 had been suo motu instituted and registered by the Railway Magistrate in respect of the late running of the relevant train. According to the Railway Magistrate, at or about the time that the driver and the guard submitted their reports and left the Railway Magistrate's court, some railway employees, partic