PRATAP RAMRAO MORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate for the applicant and learned A. P. P. for non-applicant.

(2.) THE applicant was convicted for offence under sections 145 and 146 of the Railways Act, 1989 and was sentenced to 20 days simple imprisonment on each count as also fine of Rs. 400/- on the first count and fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count. His substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The applicant challenged the conviction in the Court of Sessions and the Court of Session dismissed the appeal. The applicant challenges the concurrent findings of two courts.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the applicant has urged before me that even admitting the prosecution case in toto, no case of conviction under sections 145 and 146 of the Railways Act, 1989 is made out. Since firstly the incident in question did not take place either in the railway carriage or upon any part of the railway, as required under section 145 of the said Act and secondly at the time when the incident took place, it cannot be said that the Assistant Engineer was obstructed or prevented while in the discharge of his duties since at that time the Assistant Engineer was going to sit in the jeep in order to go to home. Therefore, accordingly to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the conviction and sentence on both counts is illegal in law and is required to be set aside.