T.P. Mukerji, J. - (1.) THIS case was first heard by a learned single Judge of this Court, but as it involves an important question of law on which there is divergence of judicial opinion, he considered it necessary that the case should be decided by a Bench of this Court.
(2.) THE Applicant Ram Prakash is employed as Chief Train Examiner in the North Eastern Railway and he was prosecuted by the GRP at Mathura Junction Railway Station Under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and Section 323 of the IPC in connection with an incident which took place between him and one Goverdhan Sharma, another Railway servant, on 28 -5 -1965 in the premises of the said railway station. At the trial of the case before the Special Railway Magistrate, Mathura, the Applicant raised a preliminary objection that he being a Railway servant, could not be prosecuted Under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act. The learned Magistrate took the view that Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act would not apply to the case of the Applicant if he was on duty at the time the incident took place but, if he was 08 duty at that time there was no bar to his prosecution under that section. He, therefore, made an order for production of evidence as to whether the Applicant was on duty or not when the incident had taken place. The Applicant thereupon filed a petition in revision before the learned Addi. District Magistrate (Judicial) Mathura, to make a reference to the High Court to quash the order of the learned Magistrate in point. The learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) relying on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court, M.C. Desai, J. (as he then was) in the case of Vishwanath Pandey v. State, 1960 AWR 325, held that Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act does not apply to a railway servant and he has recommended that the impugned order of the Special Railway Magistrate be quashed. The only question to be decided here is whether the word "person" used in Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act includes a railway servant or not. It may be pointed out here that Section 120 occurs in Ch. IX of the said Act which contains Sections 87 to 134 under the heading "Penalties and offences" of these, Sections 87 to 98 have been grouped under the sub -head "Forfeitures by Railway Companies". Sections 99 to 105 under subhead "Offences by Railway Servants" and Sections 106 to 130 under sub -head "Other Offences", while Sections 131 to 134 have been grouped under the sub -head "Procedure." In this case we are concerned with the construction of Section 120 which falls within the sub head "Other Offences". On behalf of the Appellant the contention was advanced that when specific provisions have Been enacted in Sections 99 to 105 in respect of offences by railway servants the sections grouped under sub -head "Other Offences", including Section 120, relate to offences committed by those who are not railway servants. The contention, however, cannot be accepted. The rubric of a statute may be looked into only when the language of the section is ambiguous, but not where it is clear. In the present case, as we shall notice presently, the language of Section 120 is perfectly clear and there is no ambiguity or obscurity in it. Consequently, it is not permissible to refer to the heading or the rubric for the construction of the terms of Section 120. Moreover, offences under the sub head "Offences by Railway Servants" cannot be committed by others but that does not mean that railway servants cannot commit other offences. The heading "Other Offences" which governs Section 120, means offences other than those mentioned before and not offences committed by others, that is, by persons other than railway servants. The sub -heading does not, therefore, purport to exclude railway servants.
(3.) SECTION 120 of the Railways Act may be set out here: 120 - -Drunkenness or nuisance on a railway. If a person in any railway carriage or upon any part of a railway - - (a) is in a state of intoxication, or (b) commits any nuisance or act of indecency, or uses obscene or abusive language, or (c) wilfully and without lawful excuse interferes with the comfort of any passenger or extinguishes any lamp, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to fifty rupees, in addition to the forfeiture of any fare which he may have paid and of any pass or ticket which he may have obtained or purchased and may be removed from the railway by any railway servant. The word "person" used in this section is a term having wide amplitude and in its plain and ordinary sense it refers to any human being whether a railway servant or not. There is nothing in the context of this section nor in the other sections of this Chapter, to warrant the view that the word does not include a railway servant. In this connection it was pointed out on behalf of the Applicant that there are special provisions in the Act, namely, Sections 99 to 105 under which railway servants are punishable for culpable actions and dereliction of duty. In particular, it was pointed out that Section 100 was specifically enacted to deal with railway servants who are in a state of intoxication or drunkenness while on duty. Hence it was contended that Section 120 was not intended to apply to railway servants in similar circumstances. To hold otherwise, it was argued, would lead to duplication of provisions in respect of the same offence. Section 100 of the Act provides as follows: 100. Drunkenness. If a railway servant is in a state of intoxication while on duty, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to fifty rupees, or, where the improper performance of the duty would be likely to endanger the safety of any person travelling or being upon a railway, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both.;