TRILOKI NATH SINHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by Shri Chander Singh Moratia, Sessions Judge of ganganagar, for quashing an order of conviction under Section 110 of the Indian railways Act, passed against the petitioner by the Railway Magistrate, First Class, jodhpur, sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- under the above section by his judgment dated 16th July, 1960.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the reference are that on 7th February, 1960s at Railway Station Binabad while the train from Hanumangarh to Sadulpur was passing on that route the petitioner, who was travelling in a First Class compartment of the train with certain fellow passengers, started smoking in the compartment. His fellow passengers protested against his smoking but the petitioner persisted in his conduct, asserting that he was a railway officer and threatened that he would get them charged for ticketless travelling. Shri Gauri shanker, a police officer, made a complaint of the incident under Section 110 of the Indian Railways Act against the petitioner. On that complaint the Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence proceeded to try and convict the petitioner as aforesaid. According to the case of the petitioner he pleaded that he stopped smoking when the fellow passengers raised objection. The learned Magistrate on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses accepted the case in the complaint that in spite of protest the petitioner continued to smoke and rejected his version to the contrary. Against this order the petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge who has made this reference for quashing his conviction.

(3.) THE order of reference is an unduly long order; but a perusal thereof shows that the recommendation for quashing the conviction is based mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that the offence under Section 110 of the Indian Railways Act was a non-cognizable offence; and therefore, the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance on the complaint made by the police officer in respect of any such offence and the irregularity, if any, could not be cured by Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The second ground taken by the learned Sessions Judge is that Section 110 of the Railways Act did not apply to railway employees. It applied only to railway passengers. Having examined the matter carefully I am of opinion that none of, the two grounds given by the learned Session's Judge can be sustained.