SITA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition directed against the judgment and order of Mr.S.L.Bhayana.learned Additional Sessions Judge dated May 9,1992 whereby the order of the learned Railway Magistrate dated November 11, 1990 convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 145 of the Railways Act, 1989 was upheld.

(2.) According to the report of the SI Surat Singh, filed belore the learned Railway Magistate against the petitioner under Section 145 of the Railway Act, the petitioner is alleged to have abused one Mukthiar Singh, in the vicinity of East Passenger Hall of Delhi Main Railway Station on November 1, 1990. In the report, there is a reference to earlier incident of October 28,1990 on which date the petitioner is alleged to have administered beating to Mukhitar Singh outside the railway station. Alongwith the report statements of Ishwar Pal and Mukhilar Singh recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also filed. Both the persons in their statements speak ofthe incident of October 28,1990. It is only in the report of ASI Surat Singh that a reference to the incident of November 1,1990 is made. The petitioner on being produced before the learned Railway Magistrate on November 1,1990 pleaded guilty. On the basis of the said plea, the learned Railway Magistrate convicted the petilioner under Section 145 of the Indian Railways Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 . Aggrieved by the order of the learned Railway Magistrate,petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge inter alia on the ground that plea of guilty was not properly recorded by the learned Railway Magistrate but the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. It may be mentioned that the appeal of the petitioner was treated as revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as appeal was not maintainable in view of Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has now preferred the present second revision which is again not maintainable.

(3.) Notwithstanding the non-maintainalibity of the second revision petition,I am of the opinion that it is a fitcase for invoking the provision of Article 227of the Constitution as the order ex facie of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is erroneous and has led to miscarriage of justice. A perusal of the order shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered and dealt with the incident of October 28,1990 which admittedly took place outside the precincts of the railway station. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has not discussed or even noticed the incident of November 1,1990.