Members of the Railway Protection Force cannot claim immunity under the Railway Protection Force Act and Cr.P.C. if the alleged misconduct is unconnected to their official duties and results in grave injury or death.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned order dated 27th June, 2009 (Annexure-4) passed in S.T. Case No.754 of 2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jagatsinghpur on the grounds inter alia that it is illegal and against the weight of evidence on record and contrary to the provisions of Section 20 (3) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (in short ‘the RPF Act’)as well as Section 197 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the same is liable to the interfered with and set aside.

2. The petitioners are the members of the RPF and as such, the RPF Act, 1957 is applicable to them for all purposes besides the provisions of the Cr.P.C. The contention of the petitioners is that protection is provided to the members of the RPF in view of Section 20 (1) of the RPF Act which prescribes that any member of the RPF having done any act in discharge of duty, it shall be lawful for him to plead that such act was performed under the orders of a competent authority. It is further contended that the mandatory provision of (3) of the RPF Act was not complied with before initiating the prosecution against the petitioners.

3. The petitioners contend that on 11^th September, 1996 at 12.30 pm, a goods train was stopped for nearly 40 minutes between Kandarpur Down House and distance signal due to engine work and during that time, some miscreants committed theft of two distributor valves and in that connection, after information was gathered, petitioner No.1 and other officials conducted a joint search during the night hours and on 12^th September, 1996, noticed three persons carrying some items and on being intercepted, two of them fled away and one was apprehended and he was found to be in possession of the distributor valves, whereafter, F.I.R. was lodged, seizure was made and the said accused, namely, the deceased was arrested and forwarded to the court of S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur on 14th September, 1996. After the production of the said accused, as it appears, he was having some medical conditions for which had to be shifted to SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack and during that time, died later to which U.D. Case No.556 of 1996, dated 15^th September, 1996 was registered at Mangalabag P.S. After two days i.e. on 16th September, 1996, the wife of the victim accused lodged F.I.R. (Annexure-2) at Biridi Outpost alleging that her husband was assaulted by the RPF police for which he died. On the strength of the F.I.R., Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.313 of 1996 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was registered which corresponds to G.R. Case No.724 of 1996. After investigation, the local police submitted charge sheet under Section 304 IPC and other offences and the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur took cognizance of it and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions before which a petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was filed and the same was rejected and then the petitioners approached this Court in CMC No.509 of 2003 which was disposed of by order dated 24th April, 2009 (Annexure-3). Pursuant to the direction in Annexure-3, the learned court below once again considered the plea of discharge and finally, passed the impugned order under Annexure-4 dated 27^th June, 2009 in S.T. Case No.754 of 2009. In fact, the court below was not inclined to discharge the petitioners and accordingly, dismissed their plea for discharge challenging which the petition was filed for indulgence of this Court once again in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

4. Heard Mr. S.K. Pal, lear