LexSHYAMLAL versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
" • 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 61 SHYAMLAL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (S • .J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, land .J. R. MUDHOLKAR, J.J.) Criminal Trial-Obstructing railway servant-<Jn the • discharge of duty', Meaning of-Indian Railways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890), s. 121-Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), •. 506. The appellant, a pointsman, bore grudge for some time against one C, a railway gnard. While C was on duty as a gnard on a train standing at the platform, the appellant came armed with a scythe, and waiving it in a menacing way told C that he would cut his neck and hurled abuses on him. The appellant was tried and convicted under s. 121, Indian Rail- ways Act for wilfully obstructing a railway servant in the dis- charge of his duties. He contended that no offence under s. l 2 l was made out. Held (per Imam, Subba Rao and Mudholkar, JJ.) that • the appellant was rightly convicted under s. 121 of the Indian Railways Act. The Act of the appellant was actuated by malice on account of the grudge and was wilful within the meaning of s. 121. Further, C was on duty as a guard and even when the train was standing he had to discharge multi- farious duties, and during the time the incident took place he was obstructed from discharging these duties. Per Dayal, j .-The appellant was not guilty of the offence under s. l 2 l, Indian Railways Act, but of the offence under s. 506, Indian Penal Code. For a conviction under s. 121 it had to be established that C was obstructed "in the discharge of his duty". The offence under s. I~~l is committed only when an accused commits an act with the intention of preventing a railway servant from discharging his duty and the act docs prevent him from doing so. Even threats of violence would amcunt to obstruction if the accused indicates that violence would be used if the railway servant persists in performina his duties. ~.., Empress v. Badam1Singh, (1883) 3 All. W. N. 197; Kishori Lal v. Emperor, A. I. R. 1925 All. 409; Bastable v. Little, 1953 February 13 1963 ShJamlal •• Stal• of U. P. Imam J, 62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. [1907] I K. fl. 59 and llcU.• v. Sl'-''•ns, [1910] 1 K. B. 1, referred to. Xnfar S11rdar v. Emperor, (1932) I. L. R. 60, Cal. 149 and Empr,ror v. Tohfa, A. I. R. 195~ All. /j9, approved. CRDllXAL APPEJ,LATB JumsmcTION : Criminal Appeal No. !J of I !)(12. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datedJune 30, ]!J(il, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. !HI of l!lfil. D. S. Go/n;ii and K. /.,, ilfehta, for the appellant. C. P. Lr1l, for the respondent. l!J63. February I 3. The .J udgmcnt of Imam, Subba Rao and J\Iudholkar .J.J. was delivered by Imam J. Dayal J. delivered a separate judgment. h!A)t, .J .---Appellant Shyamlal was convicted by the Hovorary Railway Bench .'.'11agistratr Tundla Bench Agra, exercising first class powers, for an offence punishable under s. 121 of the Indian Railways Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. GO/·. and in case of default in the payment of fine, to two months' rigorous imprisonment. His appeal to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Agra was dismissed and his conviction and sentence were confirmed. He then filed Revision ~o. 9il of I !Hil in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, but the same was also rejected by Mr. Justice Brij Lal Gupta. Against the Judgment of the High Court he obtained special leave from this Court and has filed this appeal. The appellant Shyamlal was a pointsman at Achhnera Railway Station. He bore grudge for some time against Hukam Chand Chaturvedi, P. W. 2, who was a Guard. The latter had taken in 1956 . ' • 1 - • - .... - 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 63 objection to a bed being carried on a passenger train by the appellant. Hukam Chand had also detected the appellant taking Railway line sleepers in a com- partment, a portion of which was protruding of the 'compartment, and made a report against the appel· !ant, as a result of which he was transferred. It is alleged that on November 30, 1959, Hukam Chand was on duty as a Guard on 20 Down train standing at the platform at Achhnera Railway Station at about 4-50 p. m. Suddenly the appellant came out from behind a compartment, armed with a scythe, and waiving it in his hand in a menacing way told Hukam Chand that he would cut his neck, and hurled abuses on him thereby causing an obstr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.