Sita Ram Vs. State

Sita Ram vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 27, 1993

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/689194

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/689194
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Anil Dev Singh, J.
Decided On: Oct 27, 1993
Case Number: Criminal Revision Appeal No. 122 of 1992
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

In the instant case, as per the report filed before the railway magistrate, under Section 145 of the Railway Act, 1989, the petitioner was alleged to have abused one person within the area of railway station - In the same report, an earlier incident of abusing the same person, which had taken place outside the area ...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Railway Act, 1890 - Sections 145

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sita Ram

Advocate M.R. Chawla and; B.T. Singh, Advs

Respondent

State

Legal References

Acts: Railway Act, 1890 - Sections 145
Reported In: 1994(1)Crimes848; 1994(28)DRJ193

Excerpt

in the instant case, as per the report filed before the railway magistrate, under section 145 of the railway act, 1989, the petitioner was alleged to have abused one person within the area of railway station - in the same report, an earlier incident of abusing the same person, which had taken place outside the area of railway station, was also referred - it was ruled that ex facie the order of the additional sessions judge was erroneous - accordingly, the case was remanded for reconsideration - .....a reference to earlier incident of october 28,1990 on which date the petitioner is alleged to have administered beating to mukthiar singh outside the railway station. along with the report statements of ishwar pal and mukthiar singh recorded under section 161 of the code of criminal procedure were also filed. both the persons in their statements speak of the incident of october 28,1990. it is only in the report of asi surat singh that a reference to the incident of november 1,1990 is made. the petitioner on being produced before the learned railway magistrate on november 1,1990 pleaded guilty. on the basis of the said plea, the learned railway magistrate convicted the petitioner under section 145 of the indian railways act and sentenced him to pay a fine of rs.500.00 . aggrieved by the order of the learned railway magistrate,petitioner filed an appeal before the learned additional sessions judge inter alias on the ground that plea of guilty was not properly recorded by the learned railway magistrate but the learned additional sessions judge upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. it may be mentioned that the appeal of the petitioner was treated as revision by the learned additional sessions judge as appeal was not maintainable in view of section 375 of the code of criminal procedure. the petitioner has now preferred the present second revision which is again not maintainable.(3) notwithstanding the non-maintainability of the second revision petition,i am of the opinion that it is a fit case for invoking the provision of article 227of the constitution as the order ex facie of the learned additional sessions judge is erroneous and has led to miscarriage of justice. a perusal of the order shows that the learned additional sessions judge considered and dealt with the incident of october 28,1990 which admittedly took place outside the precincts of the railway station. learned additional sessions judge has not discussed or even noticed the incident of.....

Full Judgment

Anil Dev Singh, J.

(1) This is a revision petition directed against the judgment and order of Mr.S.L.Bhayana.learned Additional Sessions Judge dated May 9,1992 whereby the order of the learned Railway Magistrate dated November 11, 1990 convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 145 of the Railways Act, 1989 was upheld.

(2) According to the report of the Si Surat Singh, filed before the learned Railway Magistrate against the petitioner under Section 145 of the Railway Act, the petitioner is alleged to have abused one Mukthiar Singh, in the vicinity of East Passenger Hall of Delhi Main Railway Station on November 1, 1990. In the report, there is a reference to earlier incident of October 28,1990 on which date the petitioner is alleged to have administered beating to Mukthiar Singh outside the railway station. Along with the report statements of Ishwar Pal and Mukthiar Singh recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also filed. Both the persons in their statements speak of the incident of October 28,1990. It is only in the report of Asi Surat Singh that a reference to the incident of November 1,1990 is made. The petitioner on being produced before the learned Railway Magistrate on November 1,1990 pleaded guilty. On the basis of the said plea, the learned Railway Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 145 of the Indian Railways Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 . Aggrieved by the order of the learned Railway Magistrate,petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge inter alias on the ground that plea of guilty was not properly recorded by the learned Railway Magistrate but the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. It may be mentioned that the appeal of the petitioner was treated as revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as appeal was not maintainable in view of Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has now preferred the present second revision which is again not maintainable.

(3) Notwithstanding the non-maintainability of the second revision petition,I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for invoking the provision of Article 227of the Constitution as the order ex facie of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is erroneous and has led to miscarriage of justice. A perusal of the order shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered and dealt with the incident of October 28,1990 which admittedly took place outside the precincts of the railway station. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has not discussed or even noticed the incident of November 1,1990.

(4) In these circumstances the impugned order dated May 9,1992 is set aside and the case is remitted back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for passing fresh orders in accordance with law. The petitioner may appear before the learned Sessions Judge on November 22, 1993 who will allocate the mailer to another Additional Sessions Judge as Mr.S.L.Bhayana is stated to be not sitting on the criminal side.

(5) With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1993 Same Parties Sita Ram vs State Same Subject Civil Same Judge Anil Dev Singh, J. Acts & Sections Railway Act, 1890 - Sections 145

Civil miscarriage of justice In accordance with law criminal procedure Railway Station inter alia set aside