IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.2147/2012 Anil VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri L.N.Sakle, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER
(Passed on the 9th day of January, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 146, 147 of Indian Railways Act, 1989 by the learned Special Railway Magistrate, Khandwa in criminal case No.508/2006 vide judgment dated 9.8.2012 and fine of Rs.600/- was imposed for each count. The criminal appeal No.155/2012 filed by the applicant was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.10.2012 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the present revision.
2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 25.9.2006, ASI Shri Meena and other constables were looking after the platform at Railway Station Harda. At - 2 - Criminal Revision No.2147 of 2012 platform No.2, some persons were found in a suspicious manner. The applicant was also amongst those persons. He could not show any ticket, platform ticket or any other document relating to his presence at the platform and thereafter, the applicant misbehaved with the police officials of police station RPF and therefore, a case was registered against the applicant and a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Railway Magistrate, Khandwa.
3. The applicant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he went to the platform to collect a scooter and therefore, a receipt, Ex.D/1 was shown. He has sent a report dated 26.1.2007 to Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF Bhopal and also filed a criminal complaint against ASI Shri Shaitanram Meena. In defence, Shailendra Shirothiya (D.W.1) and Anil Kumar (D.W.2) were examined.
4. The learned Special Railway Magistrate, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas, the appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed.
5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the applicant could not show any journey ticket, platform ticket or booking receipt, Ex.D/1, at the time of the incident. Looking to the - 3 - Criminal Revision No.2147 of 2012 booking receipt, Ex.D/1, it cannot be said that it was issued to the applicant. It is no where clear that on which date, the consignment was received at Railway Station Harda. It is no where clear that it was a consignment in favour of the applicant. If the applicant was harassed by ASI Shri Meena then, he would have lodged the FIR, soon after the incident. The incident took place on 25.9.2006, whereas letter Ex.D/2 dated 26.1.2007 was sent in reply to the letter of Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF Bhopal and therefore, it is not the FIR lodged by the applicant himself. He kept silence for a very long period and thereafter, he filed a criminal complaint, just to defeat the police case. The witness Shailendra Shirothiya (D.W.1) and Anil Kumar (D.W.2) did not appear to be reliable. Under such circumstances, the applicant could not show any reason as to why he was moving at platform No.2 of Harda railway station. The learned Special Railway Magistrate has rightly convicted the applicant for the aforesaid offence.
6. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is apparent that the applicant is an employee of District Co-operative Bank, Khirkiya and he does not have any criminal background. He should have shown his identity card to ASI Shri Meena (RPF), at the time when he was found at the platform, so that he should not be prosecuted for the - 4 - Criminal Revision No.2147 of 2012 suspicious activity. However, looking to the background of the applicant, it is a good case, in which the applicant may be released on probation by giving the benefit of provision under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
7. Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed against the applicant for the offence punishable under sections 146 and 147 of Indian Railways Act is hereby maintained but, the sentence of fine is hereby set aside. The applicant is released on probation under the provisions of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, after due admonition. The applicant would be entitled for get the fine amount back from the trial Court.
8. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as to the appellate Court alongwith their records for information and compliance. (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 9 1/2013 Pushpendra