Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1449 - SC - Indian LawsPersonal and official bias - the allegation against the petitioners and others is that they along with other people unauthorizedly entered into the railway station, squatted on the tracks causing detention for 15 minutes by shouting slogans in support of their demands, such as to repair the railway route as announced in the Budget and non plying of trains between Nagercoil and Coimbatore - whether there would occur a real likelihood or reasonable suspicion of it when an officer, who registers the case, proceed to investigate the case? Held that:- Section 145 of Railways Act, 1989 deals with nuisance, for which punishment of a fine of ₹ 100/- has been prescribed. Section 147 deals with trespass, which prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or fine of ₹ 1,000/- or both has been prescribed. As per the proviso, there shall not be any punishment less than ₹ 500/- except for special and adequate reasons - Similarly, Section 174 deals with the obstructing the running of a train for the said offence. For the said offence a maximum punishment of 2 years has been prescribed. Under Section 179 of the Railways Act, 1989, for the offences as mentioned above, an authorised officer can arrest a person concerned even without warrant. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is an element of bias, this Court, on facts, does not find the submission warranting acceptance. Admittedly, the respondent, who gave the complaint, is the authorised officer, who did the investigation. He merely received the statements from the officials and filed the complaint. He is not an eye witness to the occurrence alleged. The earlier complaint was closed only for the offence under Section 151 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this court does not find any double jeopardy or bias, more so, when the power is available to the respondent to initiate action. However, this Court finds considerable force in the other submission made. The authorised officer merely recorded the statement of few railway officials. What was required was an inquiry into the alleged offence. The said inquiry is for the purpose of the authorised officer being satisfied that an offence has been committed. Admittedly, neither the petitioners nor the other accused have been called for inquiry. Such a power is very much available to the respondent, including the power of arrest under Section 180 and further inquiry under Section 180-B of the Act. Unfortunately, no such attempt has been made. This Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, the proceedings pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil, is required to be quashed - Petition allowed.
|