RAMCHANDRA GOVINDA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused Ramchandra son of Govinda who was a Mechanical Signal Maintainer in the Central Railways at Dodra Mohor has filed this revision application against his conviction under S. 101 (a) and Section 101 (c) of the Indian Railway Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of four months under each count imposed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railway), Nagpur, in Criminal Cas No. 237 of 1959 decided on 17-5-1960 and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1960 decided on 9-11-1960.

(2.) THE prosecution allegation is that the work of a system of interlocking of signals was under-taken on the railway track near the Kohili railway station. This wok was completed on 27-3-1959. After the completion of this work on the morning of 28-3-1959 Joshi who is the Signal Inspector in the railways, deputed the applicant and four other assistants to repair or put right the detector at point No. 29. The applicant and his helpers were commissioned for this job at about 7. 30 a. m. on the morning of the 28th March. It is alleged that the applicant who was the man put in charge of this work with the help of his assistants was found to have opened the point and he had clamped the tongue rail with the main rail by means of a clamp. The accused did not issue any intimation to the Station Master at Kohili about his interfering with point No. 29. According to the prosecution, it was the duty of the applicant to give an intimation to the Station Master under Rule 52 of the rules framed as well as under subsidiary rule 52-1. It was also found that the applicant had not clamped the rails tightly and this resulted in the Janata Express called the 18-Up Janata Express which passed at point No. 29 at about 10 O'clock in the morning on 28-3-1959 derailing. The engine and one or two bogies immediately following the engine were found to have derailed. The applicant was therefore prosecuted for endangering the safety of persons under clause (a of Section 101 of the Railways Act for disobeying the general rule 52 and subsidiary rule 52-1 and also for endangering the safety of persons by the negligent act in not putting the clamp sufficiently tight in the course of repairs undertaken by the applicant.

(3.) THE contention of the accused is that the responsibility for giving intimation either under rule 52 or subsidiary rule 52-1 and obtaining the consent of the Station Master is not of the applicant but of his immediate boss and superior Joshi, the Signals Inspector. The applicant therefore defended that he could not be held guilty of breach of any duty either under rule 52 or subsidiary rule 52-1. As regards the alleged negligence in not clamping the rails sufficiently tightly, the applicant's case was that the defect was detected not on the morning of the 28th March but on the previous night i. e. on the night of 27th March and that he was in fact deputed for this work on the night of 27th March by Joshi. According to the applicant Mr. Joshi was fully aware that the applicant was required to put a clamp, that a clamp was put and that before the Janata Express got derailed several trains had passed over the track. Even on the morning of the 28th March three trains had passed over the track, two trains going up and one train going down before the Janata Express actually derailed. According to the applicant, if the clamp was properly fixed initially and had got loosened subsequently on account of the trains passing or by the Janata Express itself, then no fault van be laid at the door of the applicant that he had done his work negligently. It has also been contended by the applicant that in view of the fact that trains had already passed on the track, no occasion could arise of giving an intimation to the Station Master and therefore the charge of breach of rule 52 read with Section 101 (a) of the Indian Railways Act was also not substainable.