Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
MHMM180040062024 Instituted on : 22/03/2024
Registered on : 22/03/2024
Decided on : 28/10/2025
Duration : Y M D
01 07 06
“Part-A”
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, 9TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI.
Presided over by Shri. V. U. Misal
Date of the Judgment : 28/10/2025
C.C. No. 45/SS/2024 Exh.
(Old case no.4264/SS/2019)
Prosecution RPF Andheri (C.R. No. 11202/2018).
Represented By Shri. Sandip Singh, Spl. APP for the State of
Maharashtra
Accused Sanjay Brijkishor Lal Nirupam,
Age:- 59 Years, Occ. : Politician,
R/o. 2304, Baverli Hills, Shastri Nagar,
Lokhandwala, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
Represented By Adv. Shri. P.K. Waghmare
--Part “B”--
Date of offence 10/09/2018
Date of FIR 10/09/2018
Date of Charge-Sheet/Complaint 15/10/2019
Date of Framing Charge/Particulars 21/10/2024
Date of Commencement of Evidence 11/12/2024
Date on which judgment is reserved 28/10/2025
Date of Judgment 28/10/2025
Date of Sentencing Order, if any -------
-- 1 of 16 --
2 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
--Accused Details--
Rank
of the
Accu
sed
Name of
Accused
Date of
Arrest
Date
of
Releas
ed on
Bail
Offence
Charged with
Whether
Acquitted
or
Convicted
Sentence
imposed
Period of
Detention
on under-
gone during
Trail for
purpose of
Section 428
Cr.P.C
1 Sanjay
Brijkishorlal
Nirupam
-- -- U/sec.
174(a) of the
Railways Act.
Acquitted ---- ----
--Part “C”--
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
A – Prosecution/Complainant : -
Rank Name Exhibits Nature of Evidence
P.W.No.1 Sachin Bhai Khamkar Exh.10 Informant
P.W.No.2 Sushil Manohar Sonawane Exh.10 Witness
P.W.No.3 Vijay Shyamrav Wagh Exh.10 Witness
P.W.No.4 Pramod Dnyaneshwar Babar Exh.10 Witness
P.W.No.5 Sanjay Hemchand Choudhary Exh.10 Investigating
Officer
B – Defence Witnesses, if any :
Rank Name Nature of Evidence
(Eye Witness, police Witness,
expert witness, medical
witness, panch witness, other
witness)
---- ---- ----
C – Court Witnesses, if any :
Rank Name Nature of Evidence
(Eye Witness, police
Witness, expert witness,
medical witness, panch
witness, other witness)
---- ---- ----
-- 2 of 16 --
3 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT EXHIBITS :-
A. Prosecution :-
Sr.
No.
Exhibit Number Description
1 Exhibit – 13 Station Diary Entry
2. Exhibit – 16 Memo to F.I.R.
3. Exhibit –17 Statement
4. Exhibit –24 Report
5. Exhibit –28 Complaint
6. Exhibit –29 & 30 Summons to accused
7. Exhibit –31 & 32 Postal receipts
8. Exhibit –33 Letter dated 26/09/2019
9. Exhibit –34 Letter dated 01/10/2019
B. Defence :-
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
1. Exhibit –35 Extract of Station diary
2. Exhibit –36 Police report
C. Court Exhibits :-
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
---- ---- ----
D. Material Objects :-
Sr. No. Material Object
No.
Description
---- ---- ----
-- 3 of 16 --
4 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 28/10/2025)
1. The accused is prosecuted for the offence punishable
under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act, 1989.
2. In brief, it is the case of the prosecution that on
10/09/2018 there was a call of ‘Bharat Band’ from Indian National
Congress Party. On that day at about 9.20 a.m., the accused being
leader of said political party, reached to Andheri Railway Station on
platform no.3. The accused was accompanied with 50-60 party
activists. They started raising slogans against Bharatiya Janata Party.
In spite of resistance from R.P.F. Staff, the accused came down and sat
on the railway track between platform no.3/4 of Andheri Railway
Station. Due to the said act of the accused, train no. 90287 – Borivali
Slow, which was expected on platform no.3, was held up from 9.44
a.m. to 9.51 a.m. i.e. 7 minutes late. Also train no.90291 was
delayed. Deputy Superintended of Railway Station Sushil Manohar
Sonawane issued F.I.R. Memo of the incident to R.P.F. and G.R.P.
Andheri. Hence, the present prosecution.
3. On the basis of F.I.R. Memo, the F.I.R. No.11202/2018
for the offence punishable under section 174(a) of Railways Act,
1989 came to be registered against the accused. After completion of
investigation, I.O. filed charge-sheet for the offence punishable under
section 174(a) of Railways Act, 1989 against the accused.
4. Plea (Exh.10) of the accused was recorded for the
punishable under section 174(a) of Railways Act, 1989. The accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
-- 4 of 16 --
5 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
5. The points for determination alongwith my findings
thereon as under :-
POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused on 10/09/2018 at about 9.20 a.m.
at Andheri Railway Station, sat on the
railway track between platform no.3/4 in
support of ‘Bharat Band’ agitation and
caused delay to train no.90287 Borivali
slow local for 7.00 minutes and train
no.90291 standing at TOS and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
section 174(a) of the Railways Act, 1989?
No
2] What order ? The accused is
acquitted.
REASONS
AS TO THE POINT NO. 1 :-
6. According to Section 174 of Railways Act, 1989,
“If any railway servant (whether on duty or
otherwise) or any other person obstructs or causes to
be obstructed or attempts to obstruct any train or
other rolling stock upon a railway,--
(a) by squatting or picketing or during any rail
roko agitation or band
(b) by keeping without authority any rolling
stock on the railway; or
(c) by tampering with, disconnecting or interfering in
any other manner with its hose pipe or tampering
with signal gear or otherwise, he shall be punishable
-- 5 of 16 --
6 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine which may extend to two
thousand rupees, or with both.”
In view of this legal provision, it is necessary to consider
material evidence on record carefully.
7. The prosecution witness Sachin Khamkar (P.W.1) is
important witness of present case, because he has set the entire
action in motion. Sachin (P.W.1) has stated that on 25/09/2018 he
was attached to Andheri Railway Station as Station Superintended.
On 10/09/2018 there was a call of ‘Bharat Band’ by Indian National
Congress Party. On that day he was on duty from 6.00 a.m. to 02.00
p.m. At about 9.20 a.m. the accused along-with his supporters
gathered at platform no.3 of Andheri Railway Station. They started
raising slogans. At about 9.45 a.m. the accused along-with the mob
rushed on the railway track. They started giving Dharna on the said
railway track. Due to the said act the train towards Borivali was
halted from 9.44 a.m. to 9.51 a.m. Due to the said act two trains
were delayed by 7 minutes. Sachin (P.W.1) has stated that he has
entered the said incidence in station diary. The entry No.15 (Exh.13)
is about the said incident. Also, he has stated that photographs
article A-1 to A-8 are about the said incidence. Thus, Sachin (P.W.1)
has fully supported to the prosecution case.
8. During cross-examination Sachin (P.W.1) has stated that
on that day there was agitation against the fuel price high made by
Central Government. He has admitted that ex-Chief Minister Ashok
Chavan was also present. He has admitted that he is having a
separate cabin in Andheri Railway Station. He has further admitted
that he has not heard any slogans. This fact creates doubts about
-- 6 of 16 --
7 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
presence of Sachin (P.W.1) at the spot of incident. Further, Sachin
(P.W.1) has fairly admitted that during investigation his statement is
never recorded by investigating officer. These facts further
strengthened the doubt about the presence of Sachin (P.W.1) on
platform no.3 at the relevant time.
9. Sachin (P.W.1) has stated that he has entered the said
incident in station diary. The entry No.15 (Exh.13) is about the said
incident. This entry is very important, because on the basis of this
entry entire further action is initiated. Careful reading of entry
no.15 (Exh.13), it is entry dated 10/09/2018 of station charge book.
The exact wordings of relevant part of said entry are reproduced
below :
“
Due to Rail Reko on PF no.3 train no.BO90287
detained from 9.44 to 9.51. Rail Roko done by Congress
Party Leader Shri. Sanjay Nirupam and Shri. Ashok
Chavan with mob of about 100 people. They are drew
away from Rly premises by RPF, GRP and CT Police.”
10. As discussed above, physical presence of Sachin (P.W.1)
on platform no.3 at the time of incident is doubtful. Apart from that,
bear reading of contents of entry no.15 (Exh.13), no where it is
mentioned that the accused had sat on railway track between
platform no.3 and 4. Therefore, in my opinion, contents of entry
no.15 (Exh.13) itself are sufficient to create serious doubt about the
allegations levelled against the accused.
-- 7 of 16 --
8 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
11. Sachin (P.W.1) has stated that photographs article A-1 to
A-8 are about the said incidence. Careful perusal of photographs
articles A-1 to A-8, none of the photograph shows the accused being
sat on the railway track between platform no.3 and 4. Apart from
that, mere production of print out of CCTV footage is not competent
to prove those photographs. It is secondary electronic evidence and
must meet the precondition of section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, to
be admissible in evidence. It is settled law that any print out of
electronic evidence, to be admissible, a certificate must be produced
by a person in a responsible official position regarding the electronic
device. Certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is
mandatory and cannot be substituted by oral evidence. In view of
ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditro Khotkar
Vs. Kailas Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020(7) SCC (1), in my opinion,
mere production of photographs Article A-1 to A-8 is not sufficient to
prove its contents.
12. The prosecution witness Sushil Sonawane (P.W.2) has
stated that on 10/09/2018 he was attached to Andheri Railway
Station as a Deputy Station Superintended. On that day, his duty
was from 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. On that day, at 2.00 p.m. when he
took charge of office, Sachin (P.W.1) informed him about the incident.
On the basis of information given by Sachin (P.W.1), he issued written
Memo (Exh.16) to Railway Police Force to lodge the F.I.R.
Admittedly, Sushil (P.W.2) was not present on the spot at the time of
said incident. Admittedly, Sushil (P.W.2) issued Memo (Exh.16) on
the basis of information given by Sachin (P.W.1). Therefore, present
witness is hearsay witness about the actual incident.
-- 8 of 16 --
9 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
13. During cross-examination Sushil (P.W.2) has fairly
admitted that his statement was never recorded by investigating
officer. Apart from that, contents of Memo (Exh.16) are nothing but
request for lodging F.I.R. against the accused. Therefore, contents of
Memo (Exh.16) are of no use to prove any fact of prosecution case.
Considering these facts, in my opinion, oral testimony of Sushil
(P.W.2) and Memo (Exh.16) are not competent to prove any fact of
the present case.
14. The prosecution witness Vijay Wagh (P.W.3) has stated
that on 10/09/2018 he was attached to Andheri Railway Station as a
Police Sub-Inspector, Railway Police Force. On that day, there was a
call of ‘Bharat Band’ from National Congress Party. At about 9.20
a.m. the accused along-with 100 supporters came on platform no.3 of
Andheri Railway Station. They raised slogans and went on railway
track. Due to the said act, Borivali Local No.90287 scheduled to
arrive at 9.45a.m. on platform no.3, was delayed by 7 minutes. In
short, present witness has fully corroborated with testimony of
Sachin (P.W.1) and has fully supported to the prosecution.
15. During cross-examination, Vijay (P.W.3) has fairly
admitted that his statement was never recorded during investigation.
Further, Vijay (P.W.3) has fairly admitted that he was not personally
present at the spot, at the time of incident. In view of these facts, in
my opinion, oral testimony of Vijay (P.W.3) is hearsay evidence.
Therefore, oral testimony of Vijay (P.W.3) is not reliable.
-- 9 of 16 --
10 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
16. The prosecution witness Pramod Babar (P.W.4) has stated
that on 10/09/2018 he was attached to GRP Andheri Railway Station
as Sr. Police Inspector. On that day, he received information at 9.15
a.m. that agitation against the Government is going-on at platform
no.3 of Andheri Railway Station. He saw that the accused and other
persons were raising slogans and they actually got down on the
railway track. Due to such act, Borivali Slow Local was delayed by 15
minutes. Therefore, he sent report (Exh.24) to Police Commissioner
Railway about the incident.
17. Careful reading of report (Exh.24), its contents
corroborates the oral testimony of Pramod (P.W.4). However, report
(Exh.24) does not bear acknowledgment of the addressee. Hence, it
creates doubt on the fact of sending the same to Police Commissioner
Railway. Also, report (Exh.24) is dated 11/09/2018. Thus, there is
no explanation of delay in sending report (Exh.24) to concern
address. Apart from that, Pramod (P.W.4) has admitted in cross-
examination that his statement was never recorded during
investigation. Thus, oral testimony of Pramod (P.W.4) does not
inspire any confidence. Therefore, in my opinion, oral testimony of
Pramod (P.W.4) is not reliable to prove any fact of present case.
18. Sanjay Chaudhary (P.W.5) is an investigating officer of
present case. He has stated that on the day of incident he was
attached to Railway Protection Force at Andheri Railway Station. On
10/09/2018, as there was a call of ‘Bharat Band’ from Congress
Political Party, he along-with his staff was present on their duty to
ensure that railway runs smoothly. At about 9.15 a.m. he received
-- 10 of 16 --
11 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
information that 50 to 60 supporters of Congress Party have gathered
on platform no.3 of Andheri Railway Station. He immediately visited
the spot. At that time the accused got down on the railway tract
between platform no.3 and 4. The accused lay down on the tract
and refused to go away from the track. Due to said act, railway
functioning was disturbed between 9.44 a.m. to 9.51 a.m.
19. Investigating officer has further stated that Sushil (P.W.2)
issued Memo (Exh.16) to lodge F.I.R. about the said incident. He has
further stated that thereafter he filed written complaint (Exh.28)
before Railway Court, Andheri. Careful reading of complaint
(Exh.28), it is clear that present investigating officer has himself filed
the said complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile
Court, Andheri, Mumbai on 15/10/2019. Contents of complaint
(Exh.28) are corroborating with the oral testimony of investigating
officer.
20. Investigating officer has further stated that he himself
carried out investigation of said offence. During investigation he
recorded statements of Sachin (P.W.1), Sushil (P.W.2) and Vijay
(P.W.3). Also he collected photographs Article A-1 to A-8. After
completion of investigation, it is revealed that the accused has
committed offence under section 174 of Railways Act.
21. During cross-examination, investigating officer has
admitted that he has not recorded statement of Principal Chief
Operation Manager Officer at Churchagate, as well as Train
Operation Supervisor. From the said admission, it is proved that
-- 11 of 16 --
12 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
there is no any authenticate evidence to prove that train no. 90287 –
Borivali Slow, which was expected on platform no.3, was held up
from 9.44 a.m. to 9.51 a.m. i.e. 7 minutes late. Because, as discussed
earlier, entry no.15 (Exh.13) is not competent to prove the said fact.
Also, oral testimony of Sachin (P.W.1) is not reliable in that context.
Therefore, in my opinion, the very important fact of present case i.e.
“ train no. 90287 – Borivali Slow, which was expected on platform
no.3, was held up from 9.44 a.m. to 9.51 a.m. i.e. 7 minutes late”, is
not proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
22. During further cross-examination Investigating officer
has admitted that station diary entry (Exh.36) contains names of
several Ministers, MLA’s, MLC’s and MP’s. He had admitted that he
has not initiated any action against them. In view of these
observations, it appears that the Investigating officer has opted
action only against present accused, and not against any single
person, for the reason best known to him. Therefore, the suggestion
of defence side that “deliberately leaving all other big politicians, the
present accused is being framed as a soft target in the present case”,
appears to be more convincing.
23. In the present case, Investigating officer has stated that
during investigation he recorded statements of Sachin (P.W.1), Sushil
(P.W.2) and Vijay (P.W.3). Surprisingly, all these witnesses have
specifically denied the fact that their statement during investigation
was ever recorded by investigating officer. This serious material
contradiction further supports the suggestion of defence side that
“deliberately leaving all other big politicians, the present accused is
being framed as a soft target in the present case”.
-- 12 of 16 --
13 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
24. Considering entire material evidence on record, it is clear
that, presence of Sachin (P.W.1) at the spot of incident at the time of
incident is doubtful. Apart from that, bear reading of contents of
entry no.15 (Exh.13), no where it is mentioned that the accused had
sat on railway track between platform no.3 and 4. Therefore, in my
opinion, contents of entry no.15 (Exh.13) itself are sufficient to
falsify prosecution case. Apart from that, mere production of print
out of CCTV footage is not competent to prove photographs Article
A-1 to A-8. It is settled law that any print out of electronic evidence,
to be admissible, a certificate must be produced by a person in a
responsible official position regarding the electronic device.
Certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is mandatory
and cannot be substituted by oral evidence. In view of ratio laid
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditro Khotkar Vs. Kailas
Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020(7) SCC (1), in my opinion, mere
production of photographs Article A-1 to A-8 is not sufficient to prove
its contents.
25. Apart from that, as discussed above, oral testimony of
Sushil (P.W.2) and Memo (Exh.16) are not competent to prove any
fact of present case. Also, as discussed above, oral testimony of Vijay
(P.W.3) and Pramod (P.W.4) is not reliable.
26. Apart from above discussion, there is no any authenticate
evidence to prove that train no. 90287 – Borivali Slow, which was
expected on platform no.3, was held up from 9.44 a.m. to 9.51 a.m.
i.e. 7 minutes late. This was crux of present matter, but the very
important fact of present case i.e. “ train no. 90287 – Borivali Slow,
-- 13 of 16 --
14 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
which was expected on platform no.3, was held up from 9.44 a.m. to
9.51 a.m. i.e. 7 minutes late”, is not proved beyond all reasonable
doubts.
27. Apart from that, it is proved that though station diary
entry (Exh.36) contains names of several Ministers, MLA’s, MLC’s and
MP’s, no any action is initiated against them. In view of these
observations, it appears that the Investigating officer has opted action
only against present accused, and not against any single person, for
the reason best known to him. Therefore, the suggestion of defence
side that “deliberately leaving all other big politicians, the present
accused is being framed as a soft target in the present case”, appears
to be more convincing.
28. Apart from that, though Investigating officer has stated
that during investigation he recorded statements of Sachin (P.W.1),
Sushil (P.W.2) and Vijay (P.W.3), all these witnesses have specifically
denied the said fact. This serious material contradiction further
supports the suggestion of defence side that “deliberately leaving all
other big politicians, the present accused is being framed as a soft
target in the present case”. Hence, the accused is definitely entitled
for benefit of doubt in the present case. Therefore, the prosecution
evidence is insufficient to prove the offence under section 174(a) of
the Railways Act, 1989 against the accused. Hence, I have answered
point no.1 in the Negative.
AS TO THE POINT NO. 2 :-
29. Heard Ld. APP for State. It is argued that there is
-- 14 of 16 --
15 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
sufficient evidence on record to prove that due to act of the accused,
train no. 90287 and 90291 were delayed for 7 minutes. Therefore,
prayed for conviction.
30. Heard Ld. Advocate for the accused. It is argued that
report (Exh.36) which set the entire action is itself sufficient to
disprove the prosecution allegations. Also, there is no competent
evidence to prove that train no. 90287 and 90291 were delayed for 7
minutes on that occasion. Also, there is no competent evidence to
prove that the accused had sat on railway track. Hence, prayed for
acquittal.
31. Considering material evidence on record, in my opinion,
prosecution has failed to prove the vital fact that “train no. 90287 –
Borivali Slow, which was expected on platform no.3, was held up
from 9.44 a.m. to 9.51 a.m. i.e. 7 minutes late”. Secondly,
prosecution has failed to prove that the accused actually sat on
railway track of platform 3/4 of Andheri Railway Station. Therefore,
in my opinion, there is no competent evidence to prove the charge of
offence punishable under section 174(a) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Therefore, I have answered point no.1 in the negative and in the
answer to point no.2, I proceed to pass following order :-
O R D E R
1. Accused Sanjay Brijkishor Lal Nirupam is hereby acquitted of
the offence punishable under section 174(a) of the Railways
Act vide section 255 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
-- 15 of 16 --
16 Case No. 45/SS/2024
(Judgment)
2. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
3. The accused is directed to furnish fresh bail under section
437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(Judgment is dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
(V. U. Misal )
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Date : 28/10/2025. 09th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Judgment Dictated on :- 28/10/2025
Judgment Transcribed on :- 28/10/2025
Judgment Signed on :- 28/10/2025
-- 16 of 16 --