STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SURESH N VAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the State against the order of discharge dated 25th March, 1986 in Criminal Case No. 45/p/85 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay. Heard both the sides.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are as follows :-It appears on 23rd November, 1984 the C. B. I. officials had gone to trap a Rakshak of the R. P. F. in connection with the demand for a bribe by him. The trap was successful. The Rakshak Shukla was held by the C. B. I. officials in order to complete the post-trap formalities. At that time, all the respondents who are Inspector and Rakshaks of the Railway Protection Force rushed to the spot and released Shukla, and manhandled Inspector Mishra and other C. B. I. Officers even after they disclosed their identity and the purpose for which they had come. Inspector Mishra and some others sustained some injuries as a result of this manhandling, then the C. B. I. Officers were taken to the R. P. F. Office by the first respondent. Later on second thoughts the respondents allowed the C. B. I. Officers to complete the formalities of panchanama etc. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons being members of an unlawful assembly assaulted public Officers on duty and interfered with discharge of duties by public servants and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 332 and 225 of I. P. C. The respondents-accused filed an application before the learned Magistrate stating that the prosecution is not sustainable without complying with Section 20 (3) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. After hearing both the sides, the learned Magistrate held that the prosecution is bad for non-compliance of Section 20 (3) of the Railway Protection Force Act and hence discharged all the accused. Being aggrieved by the order of discharge, the State has come up in revision.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that the order of the learned Magistrate is erroneous and without jurisdiction. That the finding of the Magistrate that the prosecution is bad for want of notice under Section 20 (3) of the Railway Protection Force Act is erroneous. It was argued that Section 20 (3) of the said Act is not attracted when the assault and manhandling are not done in the discharge of duties by the respondents. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order.