ANANTHA REDDY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the accused was a Railway Station Master at Hospet on 27-7-1970 and on that day when the passenger train arrived from Guntur on the Railway Platform at Hospet at 6-20 P.M. the accused is said to have abused Veerabhadraiah PW. 1 and Nanjundiah PW. 2 Police Constables. He was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Hospet, for offence punishable under S.120(b) of the Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890) (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50 or in default to suffer seven days Simple Imprisonment. It is against that decision that the petitioner (accused) has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) Mr. Achar the learned Counsel for the petitioner advanced two contentions before me Firstly, he argued that the trying Magistrate has erred in coming to the conclusion that the offence under S. 120 (b) of the Act is established against the petitioner. He submitted that the prosecution witnesss had not understood what the petitioner is alleged to have said and the manner in which they made out the meaning of the words alleged to have been used by the petitioner indicates that the case is a put up one. PW.1 Veerabhadriah and PW.2 Nanjundiah are the railway police constables. They have deposed to the fact that they were on duty when the passenger train from Guntur to Gadag arrived at the Railway Platform at Hospet on 27-7-1970 at about 6-20 P.M. They noticed that some fire-wood bundles were being kept in the door-way in the third class compartment which were causing inconvenience to the police to board the train. While they were enquiring the passengers who were there about the person who had kept the fire-wood bundles in the entrance of the compartment, the accused (petitioner) station master interfered and abused them in indecent language by calling them. "Shut up-Rascal Police Black Guards-Bloody Mysore Police. They are corroborated by the testimony of PWs. 3 and 4 who were present at the spot. Therefore, it cannot be said that the conclusion arrived a by the trying Magistrate does not find any support in the material in record. I do not intend to go behind that finding because there is evidence to support it.

(3.) Mr. Achar contended that the evidence oi PW.1 Veerabhadriah and PW. 5 Head Constable Habibulla Khan shows that PW. 1 had given a written report to PW.5, but that report has not been produced in the case and this circumstance raises suspicion against the prosecution. But the learned Public Prosecutor urged that inasmuch as this point was not raised before the Court below the petitioner is precluded from raising the Same for the first time here in revision. T think he is right in his submission. Even otherwise the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is fully supported by the testimony of PWs.3 and 4. PWs.3 and 4 are absolutely disinterested witnesses. The Court below has believed their evidence. I do not see any reason to disbelieve them. If it is so believed, then the circumstance relied upon on behalf of the petitioner cannot have any material effect in the case.