SAMBASIVAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four petitioners seek to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tirupathur, holding that the complaint filed by the Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Katpadi, for an offence under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, against them is legally competent. In order to appreciate the legal position involved in this revision petition, it is pertinent to recapitulate a few facts.

(2.) THE four petitioners were convicted by the Sub-Magistrate, II, Tirupattur, and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months for an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. The petitioners appealed against the judgment of the Sub-Magistrate and the learned District Magistrate (Judicial) Vellore, acquitted the petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, in Crl. Appeal No. 84 of 1972 on his file. But the learned District Magistrate suggested the advisability of filing a complaint against the petitioners for an offence punishable under Setcion 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

(3.) THE said offence is a first class offence. Therefore, the Sub-Magistrate of Tirupathur has no jurisdiction to try the case. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Tirupathur. The petitioners questioned the legality of the complaint filed by the respondent before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tirupathur. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that the complaint filed by the respondent was legally competent.