1 rma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 406 OF 2000 Dayanand H. Mishra, ] aged : 33 Years, Occ : Service, ] Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai residing at ] 59/6, Bazargate Street, Fort, ] Mumbai - 400 001 ] Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra ] Respondent Mr. Vinayak Katti i/b S.V. Marwadi for the applicant Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 22nd APRIL, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. By order dated 08.11.2000, the learned Magistrate, 35th Court, C.S.T., Mumbai convicted the applicant - original accused under sections 145(b) and 146 of Indian Railways Act, 1989. For the offence under section 145(b), the applicant came to be sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 100/- in default S.I. for 2 days and for the offence under section 146, he came to be sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default S.I for 5 days. Being aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, this revision has been preferred. 1.revn406-06 2 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 08.11.2000 at about 9.30 a.m., the applicant was in reservation hall of C.S.T. Railway Station, Mumbai. At that time, Police Naik Kadam attached to the C.S.T. Railway Station, Mumbai who was carrying out special check for unauthorized booking of Railway tickets made inquiry with the applicant. Thereupon, the applicant started shouting loudly and abused Police Naik Kadam. The applicant also behaved in an arrogant manner and by his behavior, obstructed police Naik from discharging his duties. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State and also perused charge sheet as well as the order passed by learned Magistrate. After carefully considering the matter, I am of the view that the order does not call for any interference. 4. It is pertinent to note that the applicant pleaded guilty to the charge under sections 145(b) and 146 of the Indian Railways Act and prayed for leniency. In view of the above, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced him as stated in para 1 above. 5. At the relevant time, the applicant was working as a travel agent. It is also the case of the applicant that when 1.revn406-06 3 he was at the reservation counter at C.S.T. Railway Station, some persons approached him and told him that they had to carry out special check in respect of unauthorized booking of the railway tickets. They suspected the applicant to be an authorized person. According to the applicant, he stated that there were other persons in the reservation hall and why no action was taken against them. Thereupon, the complainant and others got angry and the complaint bearing no. 1905 of 2000 came to be lodged against him. The case of the applicant was that this constable was pressurizing him to plead guilty, hence he had no alternative but to plead guilty. His action of pleading guilty being a result of pressure, hence, his plea should not be taken into account at all. 6. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is a travel agent. It was his duty to fill in the forms etc and thus, he could read and write. As a travel agent, he would be familiar with the procedures at the railway station. In such case, his story that he was forced to plead guilty cannot be believed. It appears that in order to get off lightly, the applicant has pleaded guilty and as he prayed for leniency, the learned Magistrate did not impose any sentence of imprisonment on him and had imposed only a sentence of fine on him. When the applicant who is an educated person who can 1.revn406-06 4 read and write has pleaded guilty, he cannot now turn around and say that he did not plead guilty voluntarily. The facts shows that he has well aware of his actions and its consequences and that he pleaded guilty voluntarily on his own accord. 7. The learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Rafique Ramzan Ali Vs A.A. Jalgaonkar and another, 1984 CRI.L.J. 1460(2). He submitted that in the said case also, the accused had pleaded guilty, however, this court set aside the conviction and sentence and discharged the petitioner- accused. I have carefully perused the said judgment. In the said case, the accused person was found exhibiting for sale articles made of lizard and snake skins, hence, he was charged with offence under sections 39(3), 40(2), 42, 44(1), 44(2), 49 read with 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Court observed that the Wild Life (Protection)Act, 1972 did not extend to all types of lizards and snakes but only some specified in the schedule. That the Act provides that it was an offence to deal in skins or articles made out of skins of certain protected species only. The articles found with the accused were not covered under the Act. The Court further observed that the prosecution could only 1.revn406-06 5 proceed if the articles seized were made of skins of lizard and snakes of the species protected by the Act, and neither the complaint nor the evidence led had spelt out any such offences. This being the position, no charge could have been framed. That the petitioner's plea of "guilty" would, therefore, be of no relevance whatsoever, for the petitioner could never have been convicted on the material placed before the Court. In the result, the order of conviction was liable to be set aside and the petitioner discharged. 8. In the case of Rafique Ramzan, it was observed that the facts stated in the complaint and in the evidence did not spell out any offence and as it did not spell out any offence, by the accused pleading guilty, it cannot mean that the accused admitted that the articles seized from him were made out of skins of lizards and snakes specified in the schedule. It was further observed that on the facts before the Court, no offence has been made out and the plea of guilty must be held immaterial in these circumstances. Further, it was observed, " it is apparent that the accused never intended by his plea of guilty to admit more than the fact alleged against him. As the complaint especially, did not disclose any offence in as much as there was no material to show that the articles seized were made out of skin of lizard and snakes specified in the schedule to the Act, no 1.revn406-06 6 offence could be made out and hence, in these circumstances, plea of guilty would be held to be immaterial." 9 However, in the present case, ingredients of sections 145 and 146 are clearly made out. The necessary ingredients are firstly that the offences of using abusive language or committing nuisance should be committed upon any part of the railway property. The complaint in the present case shows that the offence was committed in the reservation hall of C.S.T. railway station and the applicant abused the police constable and behaved in such a way that he obstructed the police constable from carrying out his duties. Section 145 of the Indian Railways Act 1989 reads as under : Drunkenness or nuisance If any person in any railway carriage or upon any part of a railway (a)......... (b) commits any nuisance or act of indecency or uses abusive or obscene language, or (c).......... he may be removed from the railway by any railway servant and shall, in addition to the forfeiture of his pass or ticket, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. On perusal of section 145, it can safely be said that in the present case, an offence under section 145(b) is made 1.revn406-06 7 out as the offence was committed on the railway property and the accused had abused a police constable. So also, offence under section 146 is clearly made out, as the applicant had prevented the police constable from discharging his duties. Thus, in the present case, a bare perusal of the complaint clearly makes out offence under sections 145(b) and 146 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. In such case, the decision in case of Rafique Ali Vs A.A. Jalgaonkar cannot be helpful to the applicant in any manner. 10. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that no offence under section 146 of Indian Railways Act is made out and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyamlal Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1511. He placed reliance on para 11 of the judgment wherein it is observed that as there was nothing on record to show that the complainant therein was at the relevant time discharging some duties as a guard, no offence can be said to be made out. In the said case, it is seen that witnesses were examined and thereafter, the Court came to the said conclusion. However, in the present case no evidence was led as the applicant pleaded guilty to the said charge. However, it is pertinent to note that the complaint itself shows that the complainant is a police constable and when the police constable 1.revn406-06 8 approached the applicant to make inquiry with him, the applicant started abusing and behaved in such a manner that he caused obstruction in discharging duties of the complainant. In such case, offence under section 146 is clearly spelt out in the complaint itself. Thus, I find no merit in this submission. 11. Looking to the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that order of the learned Magistrate does not call for any interference. The revision fails. Rule is discharged. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 1.revn406-06