Orissa High Court Quashes Case Against Odisha Minister Ranendra Pratap Swain Accused Of Obstructing Railway Movement In 2016 Protest

The Orissa High Court on Monday quashed a criminal case pending against Odisha’s Cabinet Minister of Agriculture & Farm Empowerment Ranendra Pratap Swain who was accused of leading a ‘rail roko’ (obstructing railway movement) in 2016 to protest against Chhattisgarh Government’s decision to construct a barrage over river Mahanadi.

While granting relief to the senior politician from the ruling party Biju Janata Dal (BJD), the Single Judge Bench of Justice Gourishankar Saatapathy held,

“…the learned J.M.F.C., Sundergarh while taking cognizance of offence had ignored to address the issue of limitation and simply took cognizance of offence and issued process against the accused petitioner ignoring the valuable right of accused petitioner which cannot be rectified since cognizance of offence after the statutory period is otherwise an abuse of process of Court”

On August 3, 2016, around 150 supporters of BJD, Athagarh came to the Rajathagarh Railway Station and sat in front some railway engines and obstructed the railway movement in that route as mark of protest against the decision of the Chhattisgarh Government to build a barrage over the Mahanadi, which would have heavily affected the interest of people of Odisha.

An Inspector of Railway Protection Force (RPF) filed a complaint against the petitioner on 28.02.2019 alleging that he led such protest and halted the railway movement. In such complaint, the complainant claimed that soon after the Rail roko, the Manager of the Railway Station lodged an FIR against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act against the petitioner, who was the local MLA of Athagarh.

On being satisfied with the complaint, the JMFC, Sundergarh by the impugned order took cognizance of offence under Section 174(a) of the Act and issued summons against the petitioner and transferred the case to JMFC, Angul on the ground that the later Court has been notified to try Magistrate triable cases relating to MPs and MLAs.

The JMFC, Angul took cognizance against the petitioner for commission of such offence, being aggrieved by which he approached the High Court praying to quash the order of cognizance.

Court’s Observations

The Court, at the outset, observed that a bare perusal of the allegation on record discloses that rail roko by the supporters of BJD, Athagarh was done under the leadership of the petitioner and the prima facie ingredients of the offence are satisfied.

At this juncture, the Court discovered that the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate after the period of limitation was over.

“…this Court while going through the admitted facts of the case found the plea of limitation in favour of the Petitioner which cannot be withheld inasmuch as merely because the Petitioner has not raised such plea would not deprive this Court to address such plea as available in Law, since the enactment of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is itself with an object to make such orders to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C, or prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,” the Court observed.

The Court referred to Section 469 of the CrPC which speaks about commencement of period of limitation. It also observed that the alleged offence is not a continuing offence for which Section 472 of the Code shall be attracted. Thus, the only provision which comes to the aid of the Magistrate while taking cognizance is Section 473 of the Code.

The Court noted that Section 473 empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence even after the period of limitation is over but before doing that, it has to be satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do in the interest of justice.

“The impugned order does not show that the learned JMFC has applied its mind on this question of law nor is there any disclosure in the impugned order that the learned Magistrate has condoned the delay as it was necessary to do so in the interest of justice,” the Court added.

The Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Court discussed the methodology to be adopted by the Magistrate before taking cognizance after the period of limitation is over and it was held as follows:

“This being a discretion conferred on the court taking cognizance, wherever the court exercises this discretion, the same must be by a speaking order, indicating the satisfaction of the court that the delay was satisfactorily explained and condonation of the same was in the interest of justice. In the absence of a positive order to that effect it may not be permissible for a superior court to come to the conclusions that the court must be deemed to have taken cognizance by condoning the delay whenever the cognizance was barred and yet the court took cognizance and proceeded with the trial of the offence.”

Having due regard for the aforesaid observation, the Court noted that though the date of occurrence of the alleged offence is 03.08.2016, the complaint was instituted only on 09.07.2019, after 2 years 11 months and 6 days.

The offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act prescribes punishment of imprisonment up to 2 years or a fine of Rs. 2000/- or both, but in this case, the trial Court took cognizance of offence after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, i.e. two years.

Further, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharastra v. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre to hold that delay in launching the prosecution cannot be condoned without giving notice to the accused. However, in this case, the Magistrate neither issued notice to the accused nor condoned the delay by a speaking order.

Therefore, the Court was of the considered opinion that the impugned order, which took cognizance of the case against the petitioner without issuing him notice and without addressing the period of limitation, is bad in the eyes of law and accordingly, it was quashed.

Case Title: Raja @ Rajendra Prasad Swain @ Rajendra Pratap Swain v. Union of India, R.P.F.

Case No.: CRLCMC No. 2818 of 2021

Date of Judgment: August 21, 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G.K. Mohanty, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. U.R Jena, Advocate

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 89

Click Here To Read/Download Order