HASAN BALDAR TADVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-applicants have challenged the impugned order dated 6-5-1998 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, jalgaon, thereby, rejected their application for quashing the prosecution and also for discharge under Rule 256 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (Force rules). Therefore, present Revision Petition.

(2.) The petitioners were working in Bhusawal Railway Division as constables for providing security to Station Master at Savada, whenever he carried cash to the Bank at Savada. Admittedly, the petitioners fall within the ambit of section 2 (c) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (Railway Force act) which defines "member of the force means" a person appointed to the Force under this Act. The word "force" means the Railway Protection Force constituted under section 3. The said section provides that "there shall be constituted and maintained by the Central Government an armed Force of the union to be called the Railway Protection Force for the better protection and security of railway property. The words "railway property" includes any goods, money or valuable security, or animal, belonging to, or in the charge or possession of, a railway administration. As per provisions of this Act it is the duty of member of the Force, apart from other, to protect and safeguard the railway property and further to do any act conducive to the better protection and security of railway property. This Act further gives protection to the members of the Force through section 20, which is reproduced as under :

(3.) The relevant Force Rules has a foundation of section 21 of Railway force Act. Force Rule 256 as relied by the parties is also reproduced below.