R.M.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) APPLICANT Ma­noj Kumar Gautam, Inspector Railway Po­lice Force, Etawah has moved this applica­tion under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as "the Code") for setting aside order dated 27th May 2008 passed by the oppo­site party No. 2 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railways, Allahabad (in short "the Magistrate") and to quash further pro­ceedings of Criminal Case No. 3136 of 2008 (State v. Manoj Kumar Gautam) arising out of the aforesaid order pending in the Court of the learned Magistrate.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present application may be briefly stated as under: Accused Peer Bux, s/o Mauli Bux aged about 50 years, r/o Shastri Nagar, Ward No. 2, Dibiyapur, P.S. Dibiyapur, District Auraiya was arrested by the RPF, Phaphoond, District Auraiya on 21.9.2007 as he was found in unlawful possession of 72 Distribution Valves (Dvs) an important accessory to the rail. Consequently, a case under section 3 R.P.U.P. Act was registered by the R.P.F, Out-post Phaphoond against him at Case Crime No. 2 of 2007 on 21.7.2007 at 10.00 A.M. The investigation of the case was entrusted to the applicant, who produced the accused before the learned Magistrate along with the papers for further detention in judicial custody (remand), as the investigation could not be completed within 24 hours as fixed by sec­tion 57 of the Code. The learned Magistrate remanded the accused in judicial custody for 14 days, which later on was extended from time to time on the request of the In­vestigating Officer. The accused moved an application for releasing him on bail but the learned Magistrate rejected his application on 12.10.2007. The accused, thereafter, moved second bail application on 20.11.2007 under the proviso (a) (ii) to section 167 (2) of the Code on the technical ground that the In­vestigating Officer could not complete the investigation within 60 days from the date of his arrest, therefore, he was entitled to be released on bail. The learned Magistrate found that the period of 60 days allowed for completion of the investigation under the proviso (a) (ii) to section 167 (2) of the Code had not expired, consequently, he rejected his application.
(3.) THE accused, thereafter, moved third bail application on 21.11.2007 under the same proviso on the ground that the Investigating Officer could not complete the investigation within 60 days from the date of his arrest. At this time, the learned Magistrate found that the Investigating Officer could not file any complaint/final report in the matter after expiry of 60 days from the date of the arrest of the accused. The accused was, therefore entitled to be released on bail under the proviso (a) (ii) to section 167 (2) of the Code. Consequently, the learned Magistrate allowed his bail application on 23.11.2007. However, he observed that the offence committed by the accused was of serious nature, as he was found in unlawful possession of 72 DVS, which were important accessories to the rail. The accused had ex-chequered crimi­nal history of 32 cases consisting the of­fences under sections 302, 307, 411 and 392 IPC and 25 Arms Act etc. In some of the criminal cases he had been convicted too. The Investigating Officer could not com­plete the investigation within 60 days from the date of the arrest of the accused and so he had indirectly helped the accused to be released on bail on technical grounds. The Investigating Officer had behaved in a most negligent manner in conducting the investigation. The omission on the part of the Investigating Officer for not completing the investigation within 60 days from the date of the arrest of the accused amounts to the offence under section 17 of the Rail­ways Protection Force Act (in short "the Act") as well as under section 176 of the IPC. Consequently, the learned Magistrate while releasing the accused on bail issued a show cause notice to the Investigating Offi­cer (the present applicant) as to why a criminal proceeding be not initiated against him for prosecuting him under section 17 of the Act as well as under section 176 of the IPC.;