B C SAXENA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions the petitioners are the employees of Andhra Steel Corporation and the respondent in the State represented by the Inspector, Railway Protection Force R.P.F. Post, Marripalem Visakhapatnam.

(2.) The common question of law that arises in all these cases of considered are : (1) When does a person against whom an enquiry is stated for offences punishable under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, become an accused within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India ? (2) What is the scope of enquiry under Section 9 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, and at what stage can a person take shelter under Art 20(3) during such an enquiry ? The necessary facts which give rise to this question are as follows :- In all these cases the respondent viz. the Inspector Railway Protection Force, R.P.F. Marripalem Visakhapatnam is the complainant. He registered a case against the Director and other officials of the Andhra Steel corporations at Waltair. It is alleged that the premises of the Corporation was searched on suspicion wherein several properties belonging to the Railway were found. A regular complaint under S. 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act was filed against one C. L. Mittal and four other on 29-11-1982 which was taken on file as a Calendar case by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for Railway at Waltair. But before, that an enquiry was conducted under S. 8 of the Act and thereafter under S. 9 of the Act and a notice was issued to B. C. Saxena, Accountant of the Corporation. Thereafter a separate complaint under Section 193 I.P.C. was filed against B. C. Saxena on the same date i.e. 29-11-1982. It is alleged in this complaint that the persons mentioned their who were found in unlawful possession of several properties belonging to the Railway, were required to produce certain documents but they produced false documents like challans etc., and that therefore, all of them are liable for the offence punishable under S. 193 I.P.C. This complaint was taken on file as C.C. No. 319 of 1982 by the learned magistrate. To quash these proceedings Cr.M.P. 25 of 1983 is filed in this court. Another complaint was filed as 19-11-1982 against C. L. Mittal, chief Executives of the Corporation, for offences punishable under Sections 174 and 175 I.P.C. on the ground that though he was summoned to give evidence as contemplated under S. 9 of the Act, he attend only once but later failed to attend only once but later failed to attend the enquiry with the necessary documents and therefore, he deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the instructions contained in the summons served upon him. This complaint was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C.C. No. 323 of 1982. To quash these proceedings Cr.M.P. 33 of 1983 is filed in this court. On the same day another complaint was filed under Sections 179 and 180 I.P.C. against the same accused viz., C. L. Mittal, chief Executives of the Corporation, alleging that the accused refused to give a statement and also refused to sign. This complaint was also registered as C.C. 324 of 1982 Cr.M.P. No. 35 of 1983 is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. 324 of 1983. A compliant was also filed under Secs.174 and 175 I.P.C. against C. L. Mittal President of the management Committee of the Corporation alleging that during the enquiry in Case No. 75 of 1981, summons were served on the accused at his Officer at Bangalore and he was directed to furnish records but he disobeyed the same. This case is registered as C.C. No. 187 of 1982 and to quash these proceedings, Cri M.P. 2947 of 1982 is filed. As already mentioned, against all these persons the Railway Protection Force registered a case under Section 3 of the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that all these persons against whom the cases is registered by the R.P.F. under S. 3(a) of the Act, cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves, inasmuch as they have become accused and are protected under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India; and even if they refuse to participate in any enquiry of produce false documents in an enquiry under S. 9 of the Act, they cannot be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 174, 175 and 193 etc. of the Indian Penal Code.