Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: railway protection force act 1957 section 11 duties of members of the force Page 1 of about 6,299 results (0.311 seconds)

Rajkumar Anandilal Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005CriLJ4665

..... in our view, such an act after secession of the right of private defence cannot be said to be something done or intended to be done under the powers conferred by or in pursuance of any provision of the railway protection force act 1957 or the rules thereunder and therefore, the argument based upon the provision of section 20(3) of the railway protection force act, 1957 must fail.11. ..... it was lastly contended that the procedure under section 20(3) of the railway protection force act, 1957 was not required to be followed in this case because the acts of the accused could not be said to be in pursuance of any provisions of the said act or the rules there under. ..... reliance was placed on duties of the members of railway protection force as contained in section 11 of the said act and that one of the duties of such member was to protect and safeguard railway property. ..... before we deal with the two legal objections relating to the taking of cognizance without obtaining sanction required under section 197(2) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 and because of the non following of the procedure contained in section 20(3) of the railway protection force act, 1957, we would first like to analyze and determine the nature of the acts attributed to the accused and to further determine if these acts can be said to constitute any offence under the indian penal code. .....

Director General Of Police Vs. Rajendra Kumar Dubey

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... 12.6 section 11 of the railway protection force act, 1957 provides that it shall be the duty of every superior officer and member of the force to protect and safeguard railway property and passengers. ..... that charges 1(b) and 1(c) fall under rule 146.2 of the railway protection force rules, 1987 which provide: 146.2 neglect of duty: no member of the force without good and sufficient cause shall - i) neglect or omit to attend to or fail to carry out with due promptitude and diligence anything which is his duty as a member of the force to attend to or carry out; or ii) fail to work his beat in accordance with orders or leave the place of duty to which he has been ordered or having left his place of duty for a bonafide purpose fail to return thereto without ..... the high court quashed the order dated 12.07.2007 passed by the senior divisional security commissioner, as also the order dated 18.02.2007 passed by the chief security commissioner, ordering compulsory retirement, and the order dated 19/21.05.2008 passed by the director general railway protection force confirming the said order. ..... the restricted power of arrest and search conferred on members of this force is incidental to the efficient discharge of their primary duty to protect and safeguard railway property, and to uphold the law. .....

Dayashankar Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1992(1)BomCR665; (1992)94BOMLR30

..... , of members of the railway protection force is governed by section 9 of the railway protection force act, 1957. ..... ---(1) subject to the provisions of article 311 of the constitution and to such rules as the central government may make under this act, any superior officer may -(i) dismiss, suspend or reduce in rank any member of the force whom he shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same; or(ii) award any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the force who discharges his duty in a careless or negligent manner, or who by any act of his own renders himself unfit for the discharge thereof, namely:-(a) fine to any amount not ..... exceeding seven days' pay or reduction in pay scale;(b) confinement to quarters for a period not exceeding fourteen days with or without punishment, drill, extra guard, fatigue or other duty;(c) removal from .....

Assistant Security Officer, Railway Protection Force and ors. Vs. S. S ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1996)IILLJ597Mad

..... the following are our reasons for our conclusion.it is to be noticed here that section 10 of the railway protection force act, 1957 stipulates that officers and members of the force shall for all purposes be regarded as railway servants within the meaning of the indian railways act, 1890 other than chapter vi-a thereof, and shall be entitled to exercise the powers conferred on railway servants by or under that act. ..... under section 9(l)(i) of the railway protection force act, 1957 removal can be on the ground that the delinquent was negligent in the discharge of his duty or unfit for the same. ..... of members of the force - (1) subject to the provisions of article 311 of the constitution and to such rule as the central government may make under this act, any superior officer may -(i) dismiss, suspend or reduce in rank any (enrolled member) of the force whom he shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same; or(ii) award any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the force, who discharges his duty in a careless or negligent manner, or who by any act of his own renders himself unfit the discharge thereof, namely;(a) fine to any amount not .....

State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh N. Vaidya and Others

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1996CriLJ1113

..... the respondents-accused filed an application before the learned magistrate stating that the prosecution is not sustainable without complying with section 20(3) of the railway protection force act, 1957. ..... it is only after the entire evidence is recorded and witnesses are subjected to cross-examination if the defence can be made out on the basis of evidence that the act of the respondents-accused comes within the four corners of 'acting in the discharge of their official duties' then they can certainly claim protection under section 20(3) of the act which can be proved only at the time of final arguments after trial. ..... the learned judge of the high court accepted the case of the accused and held that what the accused did was in the discharge of duties, and therefore, they are protected under section 20(3) of the act and also as far as the first accused is concerned, sanction of the government is necessary under section 197 of the cr.p.c. ..... rakshak, the accused being members of an unlawful assembly manhandled and assaulted them and interfered with the discharge of duties as public servants and the assault and manhandling continued even after the c.b.i. ..... it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons being members of an unlawful assembly assaulted public officers on duty and interfered with discharge of duties by public servants and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 149, 332 and 225 of i.p.c. .....

Binay Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Ashok Kumar ...

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR2483

..... post at madhupur railway station was outside their duty and as such it is not covered under section 20(3) of the of the railway protection force act, 1957, and no sanction or notice under section 20(3) of the railway protection force act as required is bad in law and fit to be set aside.4. ..... in this case also i find that the petitioners who were members of the railway protection force, inspite of knowing that members of grp were also on duty at the platform, but on their objection to remove certain coal bags from the platform the petitioners assaulted them or attempted to commit murder.11. ..... after hearing the parties and going through the records, i find that the main point, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners being the members of the railway protection force posted at madhupur post were on duty on platform no. ..... as per the aforesaid section 20(sic), it is stated that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any legal proceeding, whether civil or criminal, which may lawfully be brought against any superior officer or member of the force then a notice in writing is required to be given one month before to the concerned and its superior officer.it is important to note that section 20(3) comes in force only when the act is done in discharge of duty as railway protection force and personnel.7. .....

M. Gopalakrishna Vs. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protect ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(5)ALD704; 2006(5)ALT408

..... (4) nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prevent any enrolled member of the force from being prosecuted under any other law for any offence made punishable by that law, or for being liable under any such law to any other or higher penalty or punishment than is provided for such offence by this section:provided that no person shall be punished twice for the same offence.in exercise of the powers conferred under section 21 of the railway protection act, 1957, the railway protection force rules, 1957 were made. ..... member of the force and punishable under this act, or any offence committed by an enrolled member of the force against the person or property of another member of the force: provided that-(i) when the offender is on leave or absent from duty: or(ii) when the offence is not connected with the offender's duties as an enrolled member of the ' force; or(iii) when it is a petty offence even if connected with the offender's duties as an enrolled member of the force: or(iv) when, for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not practicable for the commandant invested with the powers of a magistrate to inquire into or try the offence, the offence may, if the prescribed authority within the limits of whose jurisdiction the .....

Sainik Kanaiyalal Kalumal Vs. the State

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (1962)3GLR739

..... bhatt says that sardulsing is a superior officer and a member of the railway protection force which is constituted under the railway protection force act 1957 that the duties of such officer are akin to the duties of a police officer and that therefore sardulsing should be deemed to be a police officer as contemplated under section 25 of the indian evidence act and that therefore the confession made to him cannot be admissible in evidence. ..... the duties of the members of the force are provided for in section 11 of the said act.11 it shall be the duty of every superior officer and member of the force(a) promptly to execute all orders lawfully issued to him by his superior authority(b) to protect and safeguard railway property;(c) to remove any obstruction in the movement of the railway property(d) to do any other act conducive to the better protection and security of railway property.section 12 gives power to arrest without warrant:12 any superior officer or member of the force may without any order from a magistrate and without a warrant arrest-(a) any person who has been concerned in an offence relating to railway property .....

Hari Rachu Kanadi Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1971)73BOMLR891; 1972MhLJ191

..... a reference to the railway protection force act of 1957 shows clearly that that is the position. ..... 1 was, at the material time which would be january 17, 1968, working as a sub-inspector in the railway protection force (hereinafter referred to as e.p.f. ..... [1960] mys.111 that the offences under section 161 of the indian penal code and section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act are different offences, though some of the ingredients of those two offences are common, and that section 26 of the general clauses act has therefore no application to the same, but in the view which i have taken above, having regard to hie fact that the sentences passed by the trial court in the present case have been directed to run concurrently in respect of each of the accused persons, it is not necessary for ..... i am afraid, however, the test laid down by the supreme court in that case for the purpose of finding out whether a particular officer is a police officer within the meaning of section 25 of the evidence act, if applied to the present case, clearly shows that members of the r.p.f. ..... section 11 of that act says that their duties are primarily connected with the protection of railway property, and sections 12, 13 and 14 show that they do not have all the powers of police officers under the code of criminal procedure. .....

Tofan Singh Vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... . members of the force are appointed under the authority of the railway protection force act, 1957, the prime object of which is the better protection and security of railway property ..... . that the inquiry officers cannot be equated generally with police officers is clear from the object and purpose of the railway protection force act, xxiii of 1957, under which their appointments are made ..... . section 3(1) of the act of 1957 empowers the central government to constitute and maintain the railway protection force for the better protection and security of railway property ..... . section 11 which defines duties of every superior officer and member of the force provides that they must promptly execute all orders lawfully issued to them by their superior authority; protect and safeguard railway property; remove any obstruction in the movement of railway property and do any other act conducive to the better protection and security of railway property ..... . reading section 7 of the 1966 act with that of section 14 of the 1957 act, it is clear that while in the case of a person arrested under section 12 of the 1957 act the only course open to the superior officer or member of the force was to make over the person arrested to a police officer, in the case of a person arrested for a suspected offence under the 1966 act, he is required to be produced without delay before the nearest officer of the force, who shall obviously be bound [in view of article 22(1) of the constitution] .....