JUDGMENT C.B. Kekre, J. 1. Four persons, accused respondent No. 1, Darshansingh, Shunting Master at the Bhopal Railway Station, accused-respondent No. 2, Akbar Ali, points-man at that station, Ramlal and Hajuri, who were working as what is known as Hooksmen at the relevant time, were prosecuted for disobedience of instructions for loose shunting, contained in subsidiary rules 147-1 (a), 148-1 and 152-1 (a), made under the Railways Act, whereby safety of persons was endangered, and thereby committing offence punishable under Section 101, Railways Act. They were also charged with offence under section 304-A, Indian penal Code, in respect of death of a Coolie, Rupsingh, who was said to have died as a result of an accident occasioned by such disobedience. All the four accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court. The State has come up in appeal against the acquittal of two only, viz, Darshansingh, the shunting master, and Akbarali, the points-man. 2. The accused-respondent No. 1, Darshansingh, was, on 12-2-1958, working as shunting master at the down yard of the Bhopol Railway Station. He had been entrusted the work of forming a goods train on siding No. 2 The sketch, Ex. P-4, shows the position of the sidings. There are seven tracks of sidings, which terminate in a dead end at one end, and at the other converge into what may be termed the parent line At the spot, where these sidings converge, there is a ground frame with levers, which, when put in a desired position, set the point for moving a wagon on to a particular siding 3. Akbar Ali was on duty at that time at the ground frame. His duty was to work the levers to set points for any particular siding as per orders of the shunting master. For forming the goods train on siding No. 2, one wagon from siding No. 1, and another from siding No. 3, were to be brought on siding No. 2. Accordingly, these wagons were brought from their respective sidings to the parent line, by moving them with the help of an engine driven by one Amansingh. 4. For forming the goods train on siding No. 2, one wagon from siding No. 1, and another from siding No. 3, were to be brought on siding No. 2. Accordingly, these wagons were brought from their respective sidings to the parent line, by moving them with the help of an engine driven by one Amansingh. 4. The operation that was being carried out is what is called "loose shunting", that is, a wagon on the parent line is given a push by the engine and it travels by the momentum so imparted, to the point from where the sidings diverge, and passing over the point, travels to a particular siding for which the point is set. Ramlal and Hajuri were working as hooks-men. One of them was to operate the brake handle when the wagon was loose shunted, and the other was to do coupling. 5. At the time of this loose shunting, there were other wagons standing on siding No. 1 which were being unloaded. The deceased Rupsingh, along with Mathuria (P. W. 6) and Shanti (P W. 7), was unloading coal from one such wagon, which was on siding No. 1, in between other wagons on that siding. They, it is said, were asked by Darshansingh to clear the coal that had fallen between and along the rails under the wagon, and were assured that there was no risk as no wagon would be shunted on to siding No. 1. They, accordingly, started clearing the coal lying under that wagon along the rails. 6. The two wagons, which were to be brought on siding No. 2 to form the goods train, were, as already stated, brought on the parent line. When the engine pushed them, instead of going on to siding No. 2, they went over siding No 1, and in their turn pushed the wagons standing on that line, which started moving. As a result, the deceased Rupsingh's left leg above the knee, was crushed under the wheels of the wagon under which he was working. 7. Information of this incident was immediately conveyed to the Assistant Station Master on duty. Vishwanth Sharma (P.W. 1) and the Yard Supervisor, J.P. Malhotra (P. W. 14), who went to the spot and made enquiries from Darshan Singh, Akbar Ali and Ramlal. The injured Rupsingh was sent to the railway hospital, where Dr. 7. Information of this incident was immediately conveyed to the Assistant Station Master on duty. Vishwanth Sharma (P.W. 1) and the Yard Supervisor, J.P. Malhotra (P. W. 14), who went to the spot and made enquiries from Darshan Singh, Akbar Ali and Ramlal. The injured Rupsingh was sent to the railway hospital, where Dr. L R. Munjiatlal (P. W. 4), on examining him, found that there was incomplete traumatic amputation, just below the left knee, a contused wound, 8" x 4", on the right knee, and a lacerated wound 10" x 6" on the right hip. Rupsingh was then sent to the Hamidia Hospital for further treatment. Dr. Gemini (P. W. 12) amputated the injured limb. Rupsingh died at the hospital the same night at 8.45 P. M. Dr. Dhupar (P. W. 5) who performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of Rupsingh, was of the opinion that death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the left thigh being crushed. 8. The prosecution had alleged that the shunting operations were being done under the supervision of the accused Darshan Singh, who little before the accident, had assured the labourers working on siding no. 1, that no vehicle would be shunted on that siding, that Akbar Ali, instead of setting the point for siding no. 2, wrongly set it for siding no. 1, and that Darshan Singh, who was in over all charge of the shunting, was responsible for the accident which occurred by the wrong setting of the point, because he failed to exercise supervision over the shunting operations as required by Subsidiary Rules 147-1 and 152-1. 9. The accused-respondent no. 1, Darshan Singh, had dented that he had given any assurance to the labourers as alleged. He had admitted that the points-man accused-respondent No. 2, Akbar Ali, was on that day on duty for setting points under his direction. He had further stated that at the relevant time, he had gone away from the spot of shunting to another part of the yard to obtain further instructions regarding marshalling of other wagons, after the two wagons had been brought on the parent line, and after instructing Amansingh, driver of the shunting engine, not to move the wagons till he returned back, and that the engine driver shunted the wagons in question without any instructions, and in his absence. 10. 10. According to the accused-respondent no. 2, Akbar Ali, he had had set the point for siding no. 1, as directed, and the two wagons were taken on the parent line after which the shunting master, Darshan Singh, told him that he was going to another part of the yard and he should await further instructions. Thus, his defence was that he had set the point as directed. 11. The accused-respondent No. 1, Darshan Singh, had examined one witness in defence to prove that the wagon no. 51881 had not been unloaded on the day in question, suggesting that the labourers Jhallu (P. W. 3), Mathuria (P. W. 6) and Shantibai (P. W. 7) were telling a falsehood, when they had deposed that he had assured them that no shunting would be done on siding no. 1. Two more witnesses, who had been examined in defence, stated that Darshan Singh was, at the time of the accident, at another part of the goods yard. 12. After the close of the defence and after hearing of the arguments was concluded, the prosecution had filed an application for examining Amansingh, driver of the shunting engine. This application was rejected. The trial Court held that there was no evidence to show who had directed the engine driver to shun the two wagons on the siding. It believed the defence evidence about the shunting master, Darshan Singh, having gone away from the spot to obtain instructions, and it was of the view that in his absence, the engine driver, without waiting for instructions from him, moved the two wagons by giving them a push with the engine, which resulted in their going on siding no. 1, for which the point had been earlier set. The trial Court concluded that there was neither disobedience of rules on the part of the accused-respondents, nor was the death of the labourer Rupsingh caused by any criminal negligence on their part. 13. The learned counsel for the State has argued that the trial Court should have, under the latter part of Section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, examined the driver of the shunting engine, and that it rejected the application for the prosecution in that respect, after taking into consideration only the first part of that section, which relates to discretion of the Court for examining further witnesses, without considering the second part of the section. It was urged that the second part of that section made it obligatory on the Court to examine a particular witness, if his evidence was necessary for the just decision of the case, even if that evidence was in the nature of rebuttal of defente evidence. 14. In Fasiuddin vs. Empeeror AIR 1929 Nag. 172) relied on for the State, the trial Court had found that further medical evidence was necessary to ascertain what was the condition of the injured person, after he had first been examined by another doctor, who was examined as a prosecution witness in order to find out if a case under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, was made out. Such examination of additional medical witness was made one of the grounds for the transfer of the case and it was held that the Court was perfectly right in examining the witness under Section 540, Criminal Procedure Code. 15. In Mohammad Akbar vs. King Emperor (ILR 1948 Nag. 308) the order of the magistrate for examining a witness, whose evidence was thought necessary for a just decision, after hearing of arguments, was upheld. That decision was quoted with approval along with the decisions of the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Lahore and Madras in Ram Jeet vs. The State AIR 1958 All. 439 ). Thus, if the evidence of Amansingh, driver of the shunting engine, was necessary for a just decision of the case, the magistrate ought to have examined him, even though the arguments had been concluded. However, we do not think, in the view we are taking of the nature of supervision that a shunting master has to exercise, when shunting operations are in progress for shunting wagons on siding in goods yard, that even if Amaningh had been examined, that would have made any difference to the prosecution case, (except as regards the presence of Darshan Singh at the spot at the relevant time and his signalling the engine driver to push the wagons), and the acquittal would not be affected. In that view, it could be said that the evidence of Amansingh was not essential for a just decision of the case, even if the defence of Darshan Singh that he was not present when the enginge pushed the two wagons, was not accepted. In that view, it could be said that the evidence of Amansingh was not essential for a just decision of the case, even if the defence of Darshan Singh that he was not present when the enginge pushed the two wagons, was not accepted. We will consider the liability of the accused respondents on the assumption that Darshan Singh, the shunting master, was then present at the spot of shunting and at his direction, a signal was communicated to the driver of the shunting engine, and, accordingly the two wagons were put in motion. 16. The evidence against the accused respondents consists of statements said to have been made by them to the Assistant Station Master, Bhopal on duty on that day Vishwanath Sharma (P. W. 1), and to the Yard Supervisor, J. P. Malhotra (P. W. 14), immediately after the accident, when these witnesses went to the scene of occurrence for investigating what had caused the accident, on their questioning the accused-respondents. 17. Darshan Singh had then stated to Vishwanth Sharma (P. W. 1) that he had directed Ramlal (the hooksman who has been acqitted and against whose acquittal no appeal has been preferred) to get the two wagons moved on the siding No. 2 and he did not know how they happened to be shunted on to siding No. 1, Randal's version given to that witness was that according to the orders of Darshan Singh, he had directed the pointsman Akbar Ali to set the point for siding No. 2, and Akbar Ali shouted out to him that the point had been set accordingly, and, hence, he signalled to the engine driver for shunting the wagons, but instead of the wagons traveling on the siding No. 2, they went on siding No. 1. Ex. P-10 is an entry in the daily diary, maintained by the Yard Supervisor, and the entry therein for the relevant date, 12-2-1958, fully bears out that the version given by Darshan Singh, immediately after the accident, was, as stated by the Assistant Station Master, Vishwanath Sharma (P. W. 1). The statement given by accused-respondent no. 2, Akbar Ali, to that witness was that Ramlal had directed him to set the point for siding No. 1, with which he complied, and informed Ramlal accordingly. 18. The statement given by accused-respondent no. 2, Akbar Ali, to that witness was that Ramlal had directed him to set the point for siding No. 1, with which he complied, and informed Ramlal accordingly. 18. The statement made by each individual accused immediately after the event, when questioned by the Assistant Station Master, would be admissible, but only as against him, s evidence under Section 21 of the Evidence Act, even in a criminal proceeding vide Sardul Singh vs. State of Bombay AIR 1957 S. C. 747). Thus, the version of Darshan Singh, accused-respondant no. 1, immediately after the event, was not that he was away, and had directed that no shunting be done in his absence which version was put up for the first time at the trial, and was sought to be supported by the evidence of two witnesses. The trial Court did not take in to consideration this circumstance, when relying on the evidence of the two defence witnesses Ramnarayan (D. W. 2) who deposed that Darshan Singh was talking to him at siding no 5, when the accident occurred, was deposing to it for the first time in the trial Court. He was never produced by Darshan Singh during the ivestigation, and he was told by Darshan Singh only 1 1/2 months before the witness was examined in the trial Court, that he should give evidence as a defence witness. He and Darshan Singh are co-workers in the same department of railway. According to Khushiram (D. W. 3), Darshan Singh had gone away after talking to him about 15 minutes before the accident occurred. His evidence would not, therefore be helpful for concluding that this accused was not present at the spot of shunting at the relevant time. 19. The trial Court, in concluding that the evidence of the labourers, Jhallu (P. W. 3) Mathuria (P. W. 6) and Shantibai (P. W. 7), was open to suspicion, has not considered the evidence of the Assistant Station Master, Vishwanath Sharma (P. W. 1) that, when he went to the spot, he did find the labourers working at the spot of the accident and that they had at that very time, told him that it was the accused-respondent Darshan Singh, who had directed them to clear the coal lying in between the tracks of siding No. 1. The fact that wagon No. 51881 was not unloaded on the date of the accident, but was unloaded on 14-2-1958, as is evident from the entry in Ex. D1, the coal unloading book, produced by Ishwar Dayal (D. W. 1), would not belie the version of these witnesses, since they did not depose about their unloading this particular wagon. All that they said was that they were unloading wagons standing on siding no. 1. The entries in Ex.D-1 would show that three wagons containing coal, were unloaded on the date in question at about 11 A. M, Hence, there was no occasion to view with suspicion the evidence of these three witnesses that it was on the assurance of Darshan Singh and at his direction that they started clearing the track of siding no. 1. 20. The situation that obtained was that the accused respondent Darshan Singh was present at the spot, directing the shunting operations. The only evidence against him is his own admission that he directed the pointsman to set the points for siding No. 2. The fact that the wagons travelled on the siding no 1, shows that instead of points being set for siding No. 2, they were set for siding No. 1. The other accused-respondent Akbar Ali admitted having set the points for siding no. 1. The question, therefore, is whether, on this material, Darshan Singh can be convicted for disobedience of S. Rr. 147-1 and 152-1, and of criminal negligence, resulting in the death of Rupsingh. 21. The relevant section of the Railways Act, Section 101, is as follows:- "101. If a railway servant, when on duty, endangers the safety of any person- (a) by disobeying any general rule made sanctioned, published and notified under this Act. or (b) by disobeying any rule or order which is not inconsistent with any such general rule, and which such servant was bound by the terms of his employment to obey, and of which he had notice, or (c) by any rash or negligent act or omission, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." There are general rules framed under the Act and also Subsidiary Rules, which are denoted by the letters "S. R.". Subsidiary rules 147-1 and 152-1 are as follows:- "147-1. Subsidiary rules 147-1 and 152-1 are as follows:- "147-1. Shunting operations- (a) Shunting must be performed under the supervision of properly authorised operating staff only. As stations where Shunting Masters or Shunting Jamadars are provided, shunting must be done in their presence and under their orders. (b) At roadside station, the Guard incharge of a train must personally superintend all shunting connected with his train, under instructions from the Station Master. On tranship trains, when the Guard is engaged in handing over and receiving packages, the Brakesman may be deputed to conduct shunting Supervision includes assurance that the points are correctly set and that correct hand signals are shown to the Driver. (c) The shunting of a train from one line to another across the main line, when necessary, shall be conducted by the Guard under the Station Master's instructions and the Guard must travel in his Brakeswan while a train is being shunted. At non interlocked stations and at interlocked A and C class stations, when such shunting is performed, the line must be blocked back. (d) At a B class station (both single and double lines) shunting may be performed within the station section, provided the respective home and outer signals are maintained in the "On" position. At a B class station on the single line, where Advanced Starters are not provided, shunting may be carried on between the outer signals without "Blocking back" the line, provided "Permission to approach" has not been given for a train to approach. For other rules on shunting see S R. 255-1 and 257-1. "152-1- Loose shunting-(a) Loose shunting means vehicles being pushed by an engine and being allowed to run forward unattached. It includes hump shunting. No. vehicle shall be loose shunted unless provided with an efficient hand brake or unless the vehicle is attached to at least one other vehicle with an efficient band brake. A loose shunted vehicle must be attended by a man to pin down the hand brake when necessary. (b) Loose shunting of or against loaded or empty oil tank wagons, vehicles containing petrol or kerosene oil in tins, trucks loaded with heavy machinery, rails or timber, cranes loaded explosive vans, wagons loaded with live-stock or military consignments, wagons labelled "Not to be loose shunted" and coaching vehicles even if empty, is forbidden. (Also see S. R. 151-1). (b) Loose shunting of or against loaded or empty oil tank wagons, vehicles containing petrol or kerosene oil in tins, trucks loaded with heavy machinery, rails or timber, cranes loaded explosive vans, wagons loaded with live-stock or military consignments, wagons labelled "Not to be loose shunted" and coaching vehicles even if empty, is forbidden. (Also see S. R. 151-1). (c) Fly shunting-Fly shunting applies to two or more vehicles, not attached to each other, which after receiving an impetus from an engine, have to be separated at the points, while on the move by the points being sharply reversed between the vehicles in order to send them on the different lines. Fly shunting is prohibited on the Central Railway, except for hump shunting in hump yards." 22. There has been no disobedience of S. R. 152-1. It is not the case of the prosecution that the wagons to be shunted had no hand brakes or were not attended by hooksman to pin down the brakes. Even, according to the prosecution, Ramlal, a co-accused, was assigned the work of pinning down the brakes of wagons that were to be shunted. This is also not a case covered by S. R. 152-1 (b) or 152-1 (c). Though the evidence and the judgment of the Magistrate refer to the operations that were being carried out as "fly shunting", that description is used in a loose way. In fact, what was being done was "loose shunting" and not "fly shunting", as defined in S.R 152-1 (c). The two wagons that were to be moved on the same siding and not on different sidings. 23. The learned counsel for the State then argued that it was the duty of Darshan Singh, after he gave order for setting points for siding no. 2 to satisfy himself that in fact, the points had been so set, before communicating signal to the driver of the shunting engine to push the wagons. This he could do only by actually going to the spot, where the levers operating the points were and see personally that the points had been set for siding no. 2, since there is no evidence that by operation of the levers, certain indicators or signals were also operated, which could show to the shunting master where he was standing for which siding the points had been set. 2, since there is no evidence that by operation of the levers, certain indicators or signals were also operated, which could show to the shunting master where he was standing for which siding the points had been set. The positions of the levers could not also have given any indication in that respect, since there is no material on record to ascertain what type of levers they were. If points were to be set by levers, engaging a spring and then pulling the levers back to the former position, the levers would be in the same position, before and after setting of the points. 24. The leaned counsel for the State then relied on Local Government vs. Hari Prashad (13 NLR 90) for his submission in respect of the extent of supervision that was necessary. That was a case in which disobedience was of an entirely different rule, which has been quoted in the report of that judgment, and the train for which the points had to be set was a passenger train. As is mentioned in the report of that judgment, the relevant rule provided:- "The Station Master is personally responsible for the setting and locking of facing points for reception and despatch of passenger and ballast trains." Further, in that case, it was held that the station master had failed in his duty of observing the directions contained in that rule, by taking it for granted that the points set previously had not been distrubed, without personally verifying the fact. The present S.R. 37-1 (a) would make the position clear. It is as follows:- "The Station Master must personally set and lock all facing points, and set the trailing points or ensure the setting and locking of the points, as the case may be, for the reception and despatch of all trains carrying passengers (including ballast trains)." The emphasis is on the words "personally set." 25. Subsidiary rule 147-1 (a), with which we are concerned, merely says that shunting must be performed under the supervision of properly authorised operating staff only, and at stations where shunting masters are provided, it must be done in their presence and under their orders. Thus, the shunting master, who is a person, properly authorised for shunting oprations, has to be present at the time of shunting, which has to be done under his orders and under his over-all supervision. 26. Thus, the shunting master, who is a person, properly authorised for shunting oprations, has to be present at the time of shunting, which has to be done under his orders and under his over-all supervision. 26. To supervise means, according to the dictionary meaning, to direct or to watch with authority the work or proceedings, or progress of work or porceedings. When a person is required to supervise certain work, which is to be done by others, he has only to see that the work is being carried on according to the instructions, and keep an over-all watch over the proceedings and get corrected any mistake that comes to his notice during the supervision. We do not think that it means that the person supervising the work to be done under his orders, has, every time he issues orders, which have to be carried out by another, to go to that person and see that they are correctly carried out. If he issues a correct order, he could not be said to have failed in his duty of supervision from the point of view of criminal liability, if a person who is carrying out the order committs a mistake, of which the person supervising could not have known, except by going to the spot where the order is being executed, and watching how that person is carrying out that order. 27. Subsidiary rule 147-1 (b) refers to shunting connected with a train at roadside stations and would not cover a case of the type under consideration. The last sentence of that rule reads:- "Supervision includes assurance that the points are correctly set and that correct hand signals are shown to the Driver." The supervision therein contemplated is in respect of shunting connected with a train and that too at a Roadside station. The kind of supervision to be exercised was advisedly more specifically defined in that particular way, since at a Roadside station there would not be available properly trained operating staff to work the points. However, in the earlier part of that rule, the words used are "personally superintend", and it was that expression, which was being amplified and explained by the words of the last sentence in that rule. However, in the earlier part of that rule, the words used are "personally superintend", and it was that expression, which was being amplified and explained by the words of the last sentence in that rule. If that sort of supervision was the one contemplated to be exercised for purposes of S R. 147-1 (a), then there was no point in defining such supervision in rule 147-1 (a), only and not in rule 147-1 (a), Had the intention been that the supervision that is to be exercised is of the type mentioned in S.R. 147-1 (b) in respect of all sub-rules (a), (b), (c) and (d) of S.R. 147-1, then we would have expected that there would have been a provision accordingly, by inserting another sub-rule saying that the supervision in all those sub-rules was that type of supervision mentioned in the last sentence of S.R. 147 1(b). 28. Another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the State is a Division Bench decision of this Court in State vs. Rainitkumar ( 1960 JLJ 308 ). In that case also, the person concerned was a Station Master, and we have already pointed out that the obligations and duties cast on station master and supervision to be exercised by him as per rule, already reproduced above, in respect of setting of points of passenger or ballast train, or entirely different from those of a shunting master. 29. The shunting master, Darshansingh, was present at the scene of shunting. He issued the correct orders and saw that the necessary qualified person was there to carry out the orders. We do not think that the relevant S.R. 147-1 (a) requires that he should have personally gone to the spot where the levers for working the points were situated, and to have verified by going there whether the points had been set as per his orders. There is no material on record from which it could be ascertained where the shunting master, Darshansingh was standing and whether, from where he was, he could have been aware that the points had not been set for siding No. 2, but had been set for siding No. 1. There is no material on record from which it could be ascertained where the shunting master, Darshansingh was standing and whether, from where he was, he could have been aware that the points had not been set for siding No. 2, but had been set for siding No. 1. We are, therefore, of the view that there was no disobedience of S.R. 147-1 (a), which is the only relevant rule for the purposes of this case, by Darshansingh, and also that there was no criminal negligence on his part. 30. As against the accused-respondent No. 2, Akbar Ali, the only evidence that can be considered is his statement to the Assistant Station Master that he set the point for siding No. 1, but that statement is qualified by the further statement that it was at the direction of the shunting master that he did so. The whole statement has to be considered. The statements of Darshansingh and of the co-accused Ramlal to the Assistant Station Master that they had directed Akbarali to set points for siding No. 2, would not be evidence as against Akbarali. Similarly, the statement of Akbarali that he was asked to set points for siding No. 1 would not be evidence against Darshansingh. Thus, there is no evidence that Akbarali set the points for siding No. 1, though he was directed to set them for siding No. 2. In this state of evidence, there cannot be said to have been any disobedience of rules on the part of Akbarali, and he could not have been held guilty of the charges framed against him. 31. It is true that a life is lost because some body had committed mistake either in the direction regarding setting of points or their setting. Had the prosecution not put in the array of accused almost all the persons, who could have thrown light on the question what exactly were the orders given by the shunting master, then it could have been possible to fasten liability on a particular person. As it is, Ramlal, the hooksman, was a person who could have thrown light on that point of fact, but he too was put in the array of accused, and his evidence has not been available. As it is, Ramlal, the hooksman, was a person who could have thrown light on that point of fact, but he too was put in the array of accused, and his evidence has not been available. Further, the nature of supervision that a shunting master has to exercise has not been very specifically laid down in the Subsidiary Rules, just as it has been laid down in respect of the supervision to be exercised by a Station Master (vide S.R. 37) and a guard of train at a roadside station in connection with shunting of train vide S.R. 147-1 (b). It appears that the Subsidiary Rules make distinction between supervision to be exercised when a passenger train or a ballast train is to be moved, or when there is shunting in connection with a train at a roadside station, and the supervision expected when shunting is being done in a goods yard on sidings. 32. The result is that we see no reason to reverse the finding of acquittal of the accused-respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed