NAGARAJ versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 851 · Decided: 21-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
851
NAGARAJ
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 21, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Railways Act, 1989 – s.160(2) – Opening or breaking a level
crossing gate – Appellant -driver while driving the bus hit it against
the railway crossing gate – Due to the said hit, the railway crossing
gate was broken – Trial Court found appellant guilty for commission
of the offence u/s. 160(2) of the Act and he was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months – Appellate Court
affirmed the conviction – In Revision, High Court upheld the order
of the Appellate Court – On appeal, held: Three Courts below, on
appreciation of evidence had found that appellant had committed
offence – Such finding being concurrent finding of fact is binding
while hearing appeal u/Art.136 of the Constitution – However,
appellant has already undergone one month’s jail sentence and the
offence in question was neither against the society nor it involved
any moral turpitude nor it resulted in causing any harm or injury to
any human being except causing some damage to the railway
property – Thus, jail sentence altered to “what appellant has already
undergone”.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
1. The first submission of the appellant that he was wrongly
convicted has no substance. It is for the reason that when the
three Courts below, i.e., the Court of Magistrate, Appellate Court
and the High Court in its revisionary jurisdiction, on appreciation
of evidence, have arrived at a conclusion that the appellant was
found to have committed the offence, such finding being
concurrent finding of fact is binding on this Court while hearing
appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.  [Para 16]
[854-E-F]
   [2019] 5 S.C.R. 851
851
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
2. However, it is for the reasons that, first, the appellant
has already undergone one month’s jail sentence; second, the
offence in question is neither against the society nor it involves
any moral turpitude and nor it has resulted in causing any harm
or injury to any human being except causing some damage to the
railway property, viz., one railway crossing gate; and lastly, the
offence is now 13 years old. [Para 18][854-G-H; 855-A]
3.  Keeping in view the aforementioned three reasons and
in the interest of justice, the six months’ jail sentence awarded
to the appellant by the three Courts below deserves to be
altered to  “what has already undergone by the appellant till date”.
[Para 19][855-A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 324 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2018 of the High Court
of  Karnataka Dharwad Bench in Criminal Revision Petition No. 100297
of 2017.
Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Dharm Singh, Prawal Mishra, Suraj
Kaushik (for M/S. Nuli & Nuli), Advs. for the Appellant.
R. Balasubramanian, Bharat Singh, Akshay Amritanshu, Mukul
Singh, R. B. Yadav (for Mrs. Anil Katiyar), Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 15.03.2018  passed by the High Court of  Karnataka, Circuit Bench
at Dharwad in Criminal Revision Petition No.100297 of 2017 whereby
the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the appellant
herein and affirmed the orders passed by the Courts below.
3. The appeal involves a short point as would be clear from a few
facts stated hereinbelow.
4. The appellant was a driver working in the Karnataka State
Road Transport Corporation. On 03.08.2006 at around  11.15 p.m.,  the
appellant while driving the bus hit it against the railway crossing gate
KM No. 350-5-6, which was set up on the railway line between Chalageri
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
853
and Ranebennur Railway Stations. Due to the said hit, the railway crossing
gate was broken.
5. Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 provides that 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 punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years.
 6. The appellant was, therefore, prosecuted for commission of
offence punishable under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 by
the Principal Civil Judge and 1st Additional JMFC, Ranebennur and
pursuant to which FIR  No.385/2006) was lodged against him on
04.08.2006 in RPF Police Station, Ranebennur.
7. By order dat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.