PRADEEP KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE revision is directed against the order dated 27.3.2004 passed by Sri Birendra Prasad Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2002, dismissing the application under Section 227 Cr. P. C. for discharge of the petitioners.
(2.) THE only point argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1, Binay kumar Singh was posted as the Inspector (In -charge) in the R.P.F., Post at Madhupur Railway Station, Deoghar, while petitioner No. 2, Ajay Kumar was posted as Sub -Inspector in R.P. F., Post at Madhupur Railway Station and the other petitioners No. 3 to 8 all are Constables and were posted at R.P.F., Post at Madhupur Railway station and all of them were entitled to get protection under Section 20(3) of the Railway Protection Force Act and as such in absence of notice for filing the case under Section 20(3) of the R. P. F. Act is bad and the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have discharged the petitioners. He has further submitted that all the petitioners were on duty on the alleged date of occurrence maintaining law and order at Deoghar Railway Station and as such they acted as per the then official duty and hence they required protection under Section 20(3) of the R.P.F. Act. He has further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that the informant -opposite party No. 2 and other G.R.P. Constables and personnel, are accused of Madhupur P. S. Case Nos. 7/2000 & 9/2000, instituted on the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioners in connection with occurrence that took place at Madhupur Platform No. 1. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that as per the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of D.S. Bhoria and Anr. V/s. N. Singh reported in , it has been ruled that if the members of R.P.F. are on duty and if an offence has been committed during the discharge of their official duty then a case cannot be instituted without giving notice under Section 20(3) of the Railway Protection Force Act. The said case was subsequently followed in other cases and the said case was also followed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of R.N. Das and others on 8.10.2002 and as such the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the act of the petitioners in assaulting the constables and personnel of G.R.P. 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.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioners, who being the members of the Railway Protection Force, were posted at Madhupur Railway Station at Platform No. 1, they were doing illegal work and when they were trying to remove the coal bags from the Railway Platform to R.P.F post then the police personnel of G.R.P. Madhupur Post at Railway Platform No. 1 objected. Whereupon, it is alleged that the petitioners in presence of witnesses assaulted the Inspector of G. R.P. and other police personnel and even attempted to commit the murder of Inspector, Ashok Kumar Sharma by pressing his neck and as such the aforesaid act of assault, on objection of G.R. P. who were also posted at the platform, and the platform of the G.R.P. is beyond their duty area. Learned Counsel for the State has also relied on a decision of the High Court reported in Cri. Law Journal and submitted that no sanction or notice under Section 20(3) of the R.P.F. Act is required and as such the impugned order suffers from no illegality.;