Summary
The Court upheld the bus driver’s conviction for breaking a closed railway level-crossing gate but reduced six months’ imprisonment to the approximately one month already served. No perversity or illegality justified disturbing the concurrent findings of guilt. The limited property damage, absence of injury to any person and thirteen years since the incident justified sentence reduction. The alternative probation plea was rejected.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent conviction warranted interference.
- Whether the sentence should be reduced or probation granted.
Provisions considered
- Section 160(2), Railways Act, 1989Upheld conviction for breaking the closed level-crossing gate while reducing the custodial sentence on the facts. (¶¶ 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21)
Held
- The three courts had concurrently found the offence proved after appreciating the evidence. No perversity or illegality in those findings warranted interference in the Article 136 appeal. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The appellant had served about one month, the incident had injured no person and caused damage only to the crossing gate, and thirteen years had elapsed. The Court considered the time already served sufficient in these circumstances. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- The probation plea had not been raised before any of the three courts below despite being available. The Court rejected it while granting the separate relief of reducing imprisonment to the period undergone. (¶¶ 20, 21)
Result
Appeal partly allowed: conviction upheld, imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone, and bail bond discharged.