Heard Mr. BK Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. None is found on behalf of the respondent.

2. This application has been filed by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, NF Railway and the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, NF Railway, Maligaon for reviewing the order dated 31.7.95 passed by this Court in Criminal Original Application No.620 of 1995, by which the prayer of Shri Babul Dey for anticipatory bail was turned down holding that offences contemplated under the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 are bailable and hence no such application under section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail is maintainable in respect of the offences under the said Act.

2A. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Railway authorities are finding it very difficult to deal with various offenders arrested in connection with various offences under the provisions of the Act. According to him, the accused arrested in connection with offences under the Act makes a prayer for bail soon after his arrest relying upon the aforesaid order dated 31.7.95 passed by this Court. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, Railway authorities are left with no alternative, but to mechanically allow all such prayers for bail, the moment an accused is arrested. Mr. Sharma further submits that neither the Indian Railways nor the Union of India nor the NF Railway was party to the aforesaid Criminal Original Application No.620 of 1995. Therefore, the present review applicants were not heard when the aforesaid order dated 31.7.95 was passed. In these circumstances, it has become extremely difficult for the Railway authorities to deal with various offenders arrested under the provisions of the said Act. Accordingly, this application has been filed on behalf of the review applicants for review or alteration of the order dated 3 1.7.95."

3. At the very outset I would like to observe here that in view of what is provided under section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct clerical or arithmetical error. I am therefore, aware of the fact that this Court while exercising power under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is totally incompetent to alter or review any judgment or order by which a case was finally disposed of.

4. However, in view of the importance of the legal issues involved in the matter and further because, the present applicants were not heard, I have decided to re-examine all the issues involved afresh as it seems to me that I have no option but to reject this review application even on merit. In course of his submission, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the review applicants referred to various provisions of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Clause (a) of section 2 of the Act defines 'Force' which means the Railway Protection Force constituted under section 3 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. Clause (c) of section 2 thereof further provides that 'officer of the force' means an officer of and above the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector appointed to the Force and includes a superior officer. According to clause (d) of section 2 Railway Property' includes any goods, money or valuable security or animal, belonging to, or in the charge of possession of. a railway administration. Clause (e) of section 2 thereof further provides that "superior officer' means any of the officers appointed under section 4 of the Railway Protection Force Act. 1957 and includes any other officer appointed by the Central Government as superior officer of the Force.

5. Section 3 of the Act prescribes the penalty for unlawful possession of railway property.

Section 4 of the act deals with punishment for other offences under the Act. Section 5 thereof declares that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Proc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document