Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Mahalingappa S/O Amrut Marennavar on 28 November, 2018
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100077 of 2017
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
INSPECTOR, RPF, BELAGAVI
THROUGH THE ADDL.
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGHT COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
AND:
MAHALINGAPPA
S/O. AMRUT MARENNAVAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, R/O: HATTIALUR,
TALUK: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT SO FAR IT RELATES TO
DISCHARGE OF RESPONDENT /ACCUSED UNDER SECTION
2
160(2) OF RAILWAYS ACT IN CC NO.122/2015 DATED
06.04.2016 AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO PROCEED WITH
THE MATTER BY FRAMING CHARGE FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 160(2) OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The State is in revision against the order dated 06.04.2016 passed in C.C. No.122 of 2015 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hukkeri, seeking to set aside the order insofar as it relates to discharge of the respondent- accused for an offence punishable under Section 160(2) of Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for brevity).
2. I have heard Sri. V.M. Banakar, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner-State as well as Sri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. On a complaint filed by the Sub Inspector, Railway Police, Belagavi, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and proceeded against the accused for the 3 offence punishable under Sections 154, 159 and 160(2) of the Act. After the appearance of the accused, the evidence of the prosecution side was recorded under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant was examined as PW-1 and another Police official of RPF, Belagavi, who investigated the case, was examined as PW-2. Exs.P-1 to P-20 were marked. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence and material on record, was pleased to discharge the accused under Section 160(2) of the Act and proceeded to frame charge holding that there is material insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 154 and 159 of the Act. The accused pleaded guilty for the aforesaid offence and accordingly he was convicted under Sections 154 and 159 of the Act. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 154 and in default of payment of fine amount, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of thirty days. Further, the accused was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 159 of the Act and in default of payment of fine amount, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three days.
4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that the Trail Court was not justified in discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Section 160(2) of the Act on the ground that there was no intention on the part of the accused to open or to break the level crossing gate and further holding that there was no such material to proceed against the accused for the aforesaid offence. He contended that Section 160(2) of the Act does not indicate any intention on the part of the accused so as to attract the said provision. As such, in the present case, act of the accused squarely attracts the provisions of Section 160(2) of the Act and accordingly, he seeks to set aside the order insofar as discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Section 160(2) of the Act.
5
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the ingredients of Section 160(2) of the Act are not made out and the learned Magistrate has rightly discharged the accused for the aforesaid offence and insofar as the other offences are concerned, the accused pleaded guilty and he has been convicted and sentenced to pay fine and the order has been complied. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the revision petition.
6. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.02.2014 at about 7.35 p.m., the complainant received a telephonic message from on duty Ry.SS that when he went to close the gate, suddenly one tractor bearing Registration No.KA.49-T-3155 with a trolley bearing No.KA-49-3575 hit the right side boom barrier and went away, due to which, LC gate boom was cut and damaged and when he ran to stop the vehicle, the accused absconded from the spot.
6
7. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 recorded under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. goes to show that an intimation was received that an accident took place to LC gate No.420 situated in between Gokak and Paschapur Railway Station and on enquiry, it was revealed that the accused was driving the tractor at the time of accident.
8. The learned Magistrate initially took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 154, 159 and 160(2) of the Act.
9. Sections 154 and 159 of the Act reads as under:
154. Endangering safety of persons traveling by railway rash or negligent act or omission.- If any person in a rash and negligent manner does any act, or omits to do what he is legally bound to do, and the act or omission is likely to endanger the safety of any person traveling or being upon any railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.7
159. Disobedience of drivers or conductors of vehicles to directions of railway servant, etc.- If any driver or conductor of any vehicle while upon the premises of a railway disobeys the reasonable directions of any railway servant or police officer, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
10. Section 160 of the Act reads as under:
160. Opening or breaking a level crossing gate.- (1) If any person, other than a railway servant or a person authorized in this behalf, opens any gate or chain or barrier set-up on either side of a level crossing which is closed to road traffic, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.
(2). If any person breaks any gate or chain or barrier set-up on either side of a level crossing which is closed to road traffic, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years.
11. According to the case of the prosecution, it was an accident caused by the accused. From the averments and the material on record, it could be seen that the 8 accused by his rash and negligent act caused the accident by dashing the tractor against the railway gate. The act alleged by the accused would attract the offences under Sections 154 and 159 of the Act.
12. This is not a case, wherein the accused entered or broke railway gate etc. with such intention or he entered by force with any criminal intent or he entered forcibly or violently so as to attract the provision under Section 160(2) of the Act. The case of the prosecution is that it was an accident caused by the accused. Hence, the trial Court was justified in framing the charges and proceeding against the accused under Sections 154 and 159 of the Act and discharging him under Section 160(2) of the Act. I see no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kmv/JTR