AJIT SINGH Vs. I.P. SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the orders of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala dated Oct. 9, 1982 in Cr1. Revn. No. 28-T 31.7.1990/19.8.1982 allowing the revision Petition.

(2.) The complainant who is an Horticulture Inspector filed a complaint No.75 of 23- 89 against four persons for the offences under sections 295-A/342/505/504/323/201 and 427 Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the complainant removed flower pots (Gamlas) at the Rest House of the Railways. The accused who belonged to Railway Protection Force,asked the complainant and the Driver of a trolly to take the trolly and the flowerpots to the R.P.F. post as the flower pots were required to be replaced. Then the first accused who was an Inspector of Horticulture got annoyed and tore off the transfer slip and abused the Driver and took him to the R.P.F. Post alongwith the tractor. The occurrence was witnessed by Sewa Singh, Nirvair Singh and Partap Singh. On being informed about the incident, the complainant went to the R.P.F. Post and asked the accused to release the flower pots and the trolly. Then A.1 gave fist blows to the complainant and ordered the accused to put the Driver behind the bars. They also threatened the complainant and the driver with dire consequences. The first accused who is Inspector of R.P.F. also foisted a false case against the complainant and two others under section 3 of the Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act. Therefore, -the complainant filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. The complainant examined himself and also examined five other witnesses. On the basis of material placed before him, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala took the case on file for the offences under sections 342/504/506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and directed issue of summons against all the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the Inspector of R.P.F. Post Patiala filed a revision petition in the court of Sessions judge, Patiala. It was argued before the learned Sessions Judge that Sec. 20 of the Railway Protection force Act, 1966 is a bar for maintainability of Prosecution as no notice has been given as required under sub section'(3) of Sec. 20 of the Railway Protection Force Act. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the revision petition and set-aside the order dated May 14, 1990 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala summoning the accused for the offences under sections 42/504 and 506 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision Petition is filed by the complainant.

(3.) There is no dispute that the petitioner in this revision petition filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. There is also no dispute that all the four accused belong to Railway Protection Force. It is also on record that complaint has been filed by the Railway Police against the petitioner and two others for the offence under Sec. 3 of the Railway Property(Unlawful Possession) Act. It is to be seen whether the complaint made by the petitioner can be said to be maintainable in view of the provisions contained in sub section (3) of Sec. 20 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, which reads as follows: