SAMUEL TIPPEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act and the sentence of fine of Rs. 36/- passed on him by a first Class Magistrate of Uditnagar.

(2.) THE allegations against the petitioner which have been believed by the learned magistrate are that on or before the 13th July, 1960 when the Railway Overseer, (P. W. 1) was engaged in preparing a lay out for a block of railway buildings the petitioner came there and asked him to stop work and also abused him filthily. The overseer, very properly, did not proceed further but reported the matter to the police. Apparently, there was some dispute as to whether the land belonged to the petitioner or not. Here we are not concerned with the jurisdiction or otherwise of the action of the petitioner on that day. It was further alleged by the prosecution that not content with the aforesaid incident the petitioner a few days later on 197-60 at about 9 A. M. went to the office of the Overseer at Rourkela, stood in front of it and filthily abused the Overseer and also threatened him saying that he would see how any construction would take place on his land. The Overseer then reported the matter to the Police on the basis of which the petitioner was sent up for trial, convicted and sentenced as stated above.

(3.) APART from the Overseer (P. W. 1) the principal witness for the prosecution in this case are (1) a Railway Choukidar, in the accounts Office named S. Chakravarty (P. W. 2) and (ii) an officiating Ticket Collector P. W. 3. These two witnesses have also supported the Overseer by saying that at about 9 a. m. on 107-1960 the petitioner stood in front of the Overseers Office, abused him filthily and threatened to assault him. The exact place where the petitioner stood while abusing the Overseer was also made clear by P. W. 2 during his statement in examination in chief to the effect that this took place in front of the office which is within the limits of railway premises. It does not appear that this portion of his evidence was challenged in cross examination.