ANUP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Anup Singh petitioner, accused No. 1, is Assistant Mechanical Engineer and is posted at Ferozepore, Northern Railway. He is a Class I Gazetted Officer of the Superior Revenue Establishment of the Transportation (Power) and Mechanical Engineering Department of the Indian Government Railways. He is not removable from service without the sanction of the Central Government. Niranjan Dass complainant is the brother of Desraj who has taken a contract for removal of ashes at Jakhal junction. Pritam Singh accused No. 2 is a Shunter Incharge Railway Station Jakhal. On 13th August, 1955 at 11 A.M., Dhari Ram Ahir, a railway employee called Niranjan Dass from his house and brought him to the office of the Loco shed. There he found S. Anup Singh, A.M.E. and Pritam Singh shunter alleged to be drinking. Immediately they started abusing the complainant and asked him to show the pits where the ashes had been dumped. Accordingly he took them to the pits alongwith his servant Sohan Lal. There both the accused remarked that there was no ash in the pits and again abused the complainant. At that time the train from Bhatinda arrived and many people collected there. An objection was raised by Anup Singh A.M.E. that without previous sanction of the Central Government he could not be prosecuted and after hearing arguments Mian Abheraj Singh, M.I.C., recorded an order dated 15th February, 1956 holding that Anup Singh was not a Public Servant and further that the occurrence did not take place in the discharge of his duties, and ordered that the case be proceeded with.

(2.) A According to section 137 of the Indian Railways Act every Railway servant is to be deemed to be a Public Servant for purposes of Chapter 9 of the Indian Penal Code, and according to sub-section (4) ibid a railway servant shall not be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of the Indian Penal Code even though he may be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 I.P.C. Sections 500 and 504 I.P.C. do not fall under Chapter 6 I.P.C. and, therefore the learned Magistrate has come to the finding that Anup Singh is not a public servant.

(3.) Obviously, this view taken by the learned Magistrate is erroneous, because according to Act 17 of 1955, Sub-section 4 of Section 137 Railways Act he is certainly a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the I.P.C. and accordingly he would be so in connection with an offence under Sections 500 and 504 I.P.C.