GURPRIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURPRIT Singh, petitioner, was convicted by the trial Court for offences under Section 121 of the Indian Railway Act, 1890, and Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code but released on probation for a period of two years. He was further ordered to pay Rs. 500/- as costs of the litigation. On appeal against the above referred order of conviction and sentence of the trial Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala maintained the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 121 of the Indian Railways Act only as violation of provisions of Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code stands covered by the provisions of the said Act, that is, Indian Railways Act, but upheld the release of the petitioner on probation for a period of two years. Still being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) THE brief resume of facts "relevant for the disposal of this petition is that on 18-1-1983, the petitioner came on a motor-cycle to Railway Level Crossing, Model Town, Ambala when Joginder Singh Gateman, had already closed the gate of the crossing. The petitioner asked the said Gateman to open the gate but on refusal of the latter that the train was about to come the accused-petitioner started abusing the Gateman and obstructed him in the discharge of his duty. The accused also assaulted the Gateman. The Gateman then gave telegram Exhibit PA to the General Railway Police Station, Ambala Cantt, regarding this incident, on the basis of which, the present case was registered and the accused was arraigned for trial on such like allegations for offences under Section 121 of the Indian Railways Act as well as Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) HOWEVER , in view of the nature of the incident, it appears that the order of both the lower Courts in releasing the petitioner on probation for a period of two years is rather on the harsh side especially when the maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 121 of the Indian Railways Act is six months with fine. The testimony of the witnesses does not reveal that the accused petitioner had tried to assault aforesaid Gateman in a cruel or revolting manner or had caused any injury. Thus at the most, the petitioner had committed an offence in the technical sense as he had restrained the Gateman from performing his duties. The period of probation has already expired. However, it is not a case of that type where the costs of Rs. 500/should be imposed upon the accused. Thus the order of the trial Court as well as of the first appellate Court regarding imposing, Rs. 500/- as costs is hereby set aside by partly accepting this petition. The costs, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition partly allowed.