RAM PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case was first heard by a learned single Judge of this Court, but as it involves an important question of law on which there is divergence of judicial opinion, he considered it necessary that the case should be decided by a Bench of this Court.

(2.) THE Applicant Ram Prakash is employed as Chief Train Examiner in the North Eastern Railway and he was prosecuted by the GRP at Mathura Junction Railway Station Under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and Section 323 of the IPC in connection with an incident which took place between him and one Goverdhan Sharma, another Railway servant, on 28 -5 -1965 in the premises of the said railway station. At the trial of the case before the Special Railway Magistrate, Mathura, the Applicant raised a preliminary objection that he being a Railway servant, could not be prosecuted Under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act. The learned Magistrate took the view that Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act would not apply to the case of the Applicant if he was on duty at the time the incident took place but, if he was 08 duty at that time there was no bar to his prosecution under that section. He, therefore, made an order for production of evidence as to whether the Applicant was on duty or not when the incident had taken place. The Applicant thereupon filed a petition in revision before the learned Addi. District Magistrate (Judicial) Mathura, to make a reference to the High Court to quash the order of the learned Magistrate in point. The learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) relying on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court, M.C. Desai, J. (as he then was) in the case of Vishwanath Pandey v. State, 1960 AWR 325, held that Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act does not apply to a railway servant and he has recommended that the impugned order of the Special Railway Magistrate be quashed.

(3.) SECTION 120 of the Railways Act may be set out here: