SUDHIR CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petitioner has been convicted by the Magistrate under Section 109/112 of the Indian Railways Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/ - in default three days simple imprisonment. He was charged under Section 121 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code but the magistrate acquitted him of these two charges. On appeal the Assistant Sessions Judge has affirmed the conviction and sentence under Sections 109 and 112 of the Indian Railways Act.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution is that the complainant Sri Dwijendranath Deka is the head ticket collector at Amingaon Railway Station, On the 2nd July 1981 he was on duty. He found that some passengers were occupying the third class compartment which was reserved for some other passengers and asked the occupants to vacate the compartment. The occupants vacated the compartment. Then the head ticket collector found that the accused with 3 or 4 others were attempting to get into that reserved compartment. His companions on the request of the head ticket collector left the compartment but the accused forced his entry into the compartment. On demand the accused was unable to produce any ticket or pass. The complainant then protested and asked him not to occupy the compartment without ticket or pass. The accused on this assaulted the head ticket collector and the matter was reported to the Assistant Station Master and to the police. The accused was subsequently arrested from another compartment and he produced a pass which had expired on the 30th June, 1961. On the completion of investigation the accused was put up on trial. At first he was charged under Sections 109 and 121 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 323, Indian Penal Code. After the evidence was recorded on the 31st July, 1962 the Magistrate by his order added the charge under Section 112 of the Indian Railways Act. On that the statement of the accused was further recorded and he made a statement that he had a railway 1st class pass which was in his suit case in the compartment and could not be produced at the time of the alleged occurrence. Thereafter he filed a pass which was valid for a period from 2nd July 1961 to 10th July, 1961, The Magistrate, however, acquitted the petitioner of the charges under Section 121, Indian Railways Act and Section 323, Indian Penal Code on the finding that the assault alleged by the prosecution is not established beyond doubt. But he convicted him under Section 109/112, Indian Railways Act.

(3.) THE other ingredient necessary for Section 109, Indian Railways Act is not also established in the case. As I have pointed out, the complainant's main grievance was that he was assaulted and the accused behaved very rudely towards him. It is not established, to my mind, that he refused to leave the compartment when required to do so by a railway servant. In fact the alteration as disclosed in the evidence of the complainant, ensued when the accused was attempting according to the complainant to enter into the compartment and he was asked by the complainant not to do be. Whatever other offence the accused may have been charged with, so far as Section 109, Indian Hallways Act is concerned, on the admitted statement of the complainant, the case is not made out. Neither the prosecution has succeeded definitely to establish that the compartment was reserved for other persons nor has the prosecution succeeded in proving that the accused refused to leave the compartment when required to do so.