SURESH KUMAR Vs. RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners-accused have filed the instant criminal revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 22.12.1999, passed by Special Railway Magistrate, Ambala Cantt. dismissing their two applications for dismissing the complaint filed by Inspector Incharge Railway Protection Force Post, Ambala Cantt under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of non-appearance of the complainant.

(2.) ON 16.6.1997, the Inspector Incharge Railway Protection Force Post, Ambala Cantt, through Public Prosecutor, filed a complaint under Section 3 of the Act against the petitioners. On 4.2.1998 and 10.3.1999, the petitioners moved two separate applications submitting that the complainant remained absent without seeking exemption from the Court and since the offence under Section 3 of the Act is non-cognizable and non-compoundable offence, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions contained in Section 249 of the Code. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relief upon a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Mukna Ram and others v. The State and another, 1998 Crl.L.J. 1882. His contention was that the complaint under Section 3 of the Act is just like a private complaint and since this offence is non-cognizable and non-compoundable, therefore, provisions of Section 249 of the Code would apply. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners, while appearing before the learned trial Court, contended that if the complainant did not appear on the date fixed, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the petitioners-accused are entitled for discharge.

(3.) AGAINST the said order, the instant revision petition has been filed.