SUKHDEO SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Banaras, recommending that the conviction of the applicant under Section 112, Railways Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) be altered to a conviction under Section 113 of the Act.

(2.) Proceedings, for the prosecution of the applicant, were initiated by the presentation of a written complaint in the Court of the Special Railway Magistrate of Banaras. A printed form was used for the complaint. The complainant mentioned Sections 112 and 113 of the Act in the space meant for the insertion of "section or sections of Act under which complaint is lodged", and in the space meant for the insertion of "description of offence", he described the offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant in the following words; "Travelled without ticket, refused to pay the railway dues." This is the whole of the allegation made by the complainant against the applicant on which he desired the applicant to be convicted under Section 112 and 113 of the Act.

(3.) It is surprising that this complaint was entertained at all, and that it was not immediately rejected on the ground that it did not disclose any offence to have been committed by the applicant. It is all the more surprising that it was entertained by a Special Railway Magistrate, who is expected to be familiar with the Railways Act at least, if not with any other statute relating to criminal law. As observed by the learned Special Magistrate himself, in his explanation, Section 113 of the Act, only provides a procedure for the recovery of railway dues and does not define any offence, The procedure provided by Section 113 of the Act is set in motion by an application and not by a complaint. It is evident, therefore, that the complaint against the applicant under Section 113 of the Act was entirely misconceived and that that section should not have been mentioned in the complaint at all.