This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.12.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 582 of 2002.
The brief facts of this case are that the revisionist Dr. Jagdish Prasad Gaur is a retired Reader and Head of Department of I.P. (P.G.) College, Bulandshahr and after his retirement he settled down in the city of Ghaziabad. On 12.5.1998 at about 8.00 A.M. he went to railway station, Ghaziabad and stood in the que before counter No. 541. He was there for reservation of a railway ticket for one Smt. Shobha Narayan. After a while the revisionist and other persons who were standing in the que noticed that the reservation officials were committing irregularities. They were accepting money and reservation forms from certain travel agents bypassing the que. Such travel agents and middlemen were getting reservation tickets premptorily and without standing in the que which was against the prescribed rules. The revisionist could not digest the irregularities and he went straight away to opposite party no. 3, Shivdan Singh, who was sitting on the counter and issuing reservation tickets. Oopposite party no. 2, Ram Gopal Sharma was occupying the reservation counter no. 542 which was adjacent to counter no. 541. The revisionist lodged his protest against the abovementioned irregularities being committed by them upon which opposite party nos. 2 and 3 started misbehaving with the revisionist. The revisionist went to Shift Supervisor R.K. Meena, opposite party no. 4, and demanded from him the complaint book. The opposite party no. 4 refused to give the complaint book to the revisionist. Thereafter the revisionist and other persons forming the que pressed their demand for the complaint book and to write their complaint therein. Seeing the mounting pressure by the public, the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 asked the revisionist to come inside the reservation room. In good faith the revisionist went inside where, after bolting the door from inside, the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 abused and assaulted him. Thereafter they handed him over to opposite party no. 5 Jai Kumar who was a constable at G.R.P., Ghaziabad. The opposite party no. 5 also assaulted the revisionist and took him to the G.R.P. Police Station and throughout the way he kept on slapping him. A false report was lodged against the revisionist and he was detained at the police station and produced before the court of the Magistrate concernd at 4.30 P.M. wherefrom he was released on bail. Thereafter the revisionist went to the Government Hospital where he was medically examined and a medical report was prepared. The revisionist tried to lodge an F.I.R. with the G.R.P. Ghaziabad but in vain; so he moved an application before the court of learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but the same was rejected. Thereafter he filed a complaint against all the four opposite parties placed at Sl. Nos. 2 to 5 of the memo of revision. In the complaint case which was under Section 323/342/504 I.P.C. the learned Magistrate directed them to appear before the court on 7.2.2000. Feeling aggrieved by the summoning order, the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 preferred a criminal reviision before the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad which was registered there as Criminal Revision No. 582 of 2002. It should be mentioned here that opposite party no. 5, Constable Jai Kumar, posted in G.R.P. Railway Station, Ghaziabad has not filed any revision.
After hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision vide his order dated 3.12.2002 quashing and setting aside the summoning order dated 6.1.2000 passed by the learned Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the present revision has been filed before this Court.
This revision was listed for hearing on 26.11.2010. On that date the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and learned A.G.A. were pressed. No one was present on behalf of opposite party no. 5 despite the fact that he has been served with the notice issued by this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and learned A.G.A. and perused the lower court records which are tagged with this file.
From the perusal of the judgment impugned, it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge had passed an order which is quite unusual. He has given protection of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to all the three revisionists before him. He has exceeded his domain and stepped outrageously beyond the limits permitted under various provisions relating to criminal revision and considered certain facts consideration of which is permitted only by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge was under the impression that he has inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. also. His judgment runs in some 3½ pages. In major part of it he has mentioned the facts and the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties before him. The relevant portion through which he has arrived at the decision to allow the revision is as follows :
"Having considered these arguments when we go through the record of Criminal Case No. 2067/99 of the trial court, we find that actually the entire incident alleged in the complaint took place in connection with reservation of Smt. Shobha Narayan and Counter no. 541 is said to be meant only for senior citizens and freedom-fighters, the complainant has not shown anything to attract the benefit of his being senior citizen or freedom-fighter. Even he has not brought any record to show that Smt. Shobha Narayan for whom he was at the counter was either freedom-fighter or senior citizen. The act of the accused persons in connection with reservation got into in the form of alleged incident and this discharge of official duty of reservation of accused persons cannot be separated from the work of reservation. Under these circumstances for want of sanction when the revisionists are government servants, the complaint cannot be taken to be maintainable. Further if at all the complainant had been challaned, it can be inferred that the complainant with a view to have the case in peshbandi against the revisionists has come forward with the complaint. In these circumstances, the impugned order has to be set aside and the revision has to be allowed."
From perusal of this part of the judgment it appears that the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that it was lawful for a Reservation Clerk and Reservation Supervisor to abuse, assault and confine a person, who had gone to a railway reservation counter to purchase a ticket, while vending tickets to the railway passengers. From the perusal of the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the statements of the witnesses and the order of the learned Magistrate, it is evident that when the revisionist had protested vending of reservation tickets in an illegal manner by opposite party nos. 2 to 4, they got irritated, called him inside the reservation room on the pretext of giving him the complaint book and thereafter the revisionist was abused and assaulted by them. By no stretch of imagination, one can presume what the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 had allegedly done was done in discharge of their official duties pertaining to vending of reservation tickets to the passengers. It is really surprising that such a senior District & Sessions Judge can misinterpret the law in such a reckless and improper manner. He has also considered various facts which were definitely not under his domain while hearing the revision. He has mentioned in his order impugned that it has not been said before the learned Magistrate, during the course of inquiry of the complaint case, whether the revisionist was a senior citizen or freedom fighter or Smt. Shobha Narayan for whom he had gone to get the ticket reserved was a senior or a freedom fighter. It was not a matter in dispute but the dispute before the learned Magistrate was that whether the revisionist was confined, abused and assaulted or not. It was only a piece of evidence relating to facts which could have been seen at the time of trial of the case. It is really astonishing to see that the learned Sessions Judge has written in his judgment that the duty of reservation cannot be separated from the work which the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 had allegedly done against the revisionist.
In AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1331 (V 54 C 278), K.N. Shukla Vs. Naynit Lal Manilal Bhatt and another the Apex Court has said that "Railway Officer officiating in Class I of the Transportation (Traffic and Commercial) Department is not an officer under Central Government but is under Railway Board. Therefore, prosecution can be instituted without the sanction of the Central Government." The Apex Court has specifically said that in this judgment that "railway officials is an employee of the Railway Board and not the employees under Central Government." Therefore, in the case before the learned Magistrate, no sanction was at all required to prosecute opposite party nos. 2 to 5.
In (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 398, Choudhury Praveen Sultana Vs. State of West Bengal and another the Apex Court in paragraph no. 18 has said the following :
"18. The direction which had been given by this Court, as far back as in 1971 in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava case holds good even today. All acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC On the other hand, there can be cases of misuse and/or abuse of powers vested in public servant which can never be said to be a part of the official duties required to be performed by him. As mentioned in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava case the underlying object of Section 197 CrPC is to enable the authorities to scrutinise the allegations made against a public servant to shield him/her against frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution initiated with the main object of causing embarrassment and harassment to the said official. However, as indicated hereinabove, if the authority vested in a public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, such acts cannot claim the protection of Section 197 CrPC and have to be considered dehors the duties which a public servant is required to discharge or perform. Hence in respect of prosecution for such excesses or misuse of authority, no protection can be demanded by the public servant concerned.
The law as laiddown in this case is squarely applicable in the case in hand before me.
A police constable, who is detaining a person in custody, cannot be permitted to assault or slap him while taking him from a place to the police station concerned. Similarly no Reservation Clerk or Supervisor of a railway reservation counter can be said to be discharging their official duties while they are abusing, confining and assaulting a passenger who had gone to the counter to purchase a ticket or demanded the complaint book to lodge the protest.
On the basis of the above discussion I am of the view that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is totally illegal and perverse and liable to be quashed.
The revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 3.12.2002 is quashed and set aside.
Let the complete Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad for its onward transmission to the court concerned. Learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. The matter is very old. Therefore, expeditious disposal of the case is directed. Opposite party no. 2, Ram Gopal Sharma, opposite party no. 3 Shivdan Singh and opposite party no. 4 R.K. Meena are directed to appear before the court of learned Magistrate on 7.2.2011.
Opposite party no. 5, Constable Jai Kumar, posted at the G.R.P. Railway Station, Ghaziabad at the relevant time is also directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on the above-mentioned date.
The learned Magistrate is directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against opposite party nos. 2 to 5, if they fail to appear before it on the date fixed by this Court. If the opposite parties move bail application before the learned Magistrate, he will dispose of the same in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 6.1.2011 S.B.