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]
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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.