Order.- The petitioner in this case one Dorairaj, was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, under section 353, Indian Penal Code, for assaulting a public servant in the discharge of his duties as a public servant and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was also convicted under section 121 of the Indian Railways Act (Central Act IX of 1890), for the offence of wilfully obstructing a railway servant in the discharge of his duties and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramanathapuram on appeal confirmed the. conviction and sentence under the first charge but set aside the conviction and sentence under the second charge. This Revision Case is filed by the petitioner. The facts of the case are briefly the following. The petitioner was found travelling in a third class compartment in a train between Rameswaram Road and Dhanuskodi P.W.1, A. Krishnan, who was the Travelling Ticket Examiner, directed the petitioner to pay the excess charge, but the petitioner refused to pay the same and raised his knife to stab the Travelling Ticket Examiner and thereby prevented him from discharging his duties. Then the petitioner is alleged to have lumped out of the train near Dhanuskodi Railway Station and escaped. According to the evidence of P.W.1 Krishnan, the other passengers m the compartment prevented the petitioner from stabbing him, when the petitioner aimed a knife at him Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.1 gave a telegraphic message to the Railway Police Sub-Inspector and also preferred a complaint Exhibit P-1. When the petitioner was questioned, he denied having committed the offence and examined two defence witnesses. According to these witnesses, it was a fact that the petitioner was travelling in the railway compartment, but P.W.1 demanded a luggage ticket for the gunny bundle brought by the petitioner. P.W.1 pushed away the Sunny bundle when the train was in motion. D.W.2 is the Head Constable of the Railway Police Station at Dhanuskodi and he stated that the petitioner orally complained to him that the Travelling Ticket Examiner pushed down the luggage bundle D W.2 sent a message to Rameswaram Road Station enquiring whether a sunny baggage had been left unclaimed. D.W.2 is the Head Constable of the Railway Police Station at Dhanuskodi and he stated that the petitioner orally complained to him that the Travelling Ticket Examiner pushed down the luggage bundle D W.2 sent a message to Rameswaram Road Station enquiring whether a sunny baggage had been left unclaimed. There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the petitioner as the person who was involved in the incident in the railway train There are no good reasons as to why the evidence of the Ticket Examiner should not be accepted. He gave a prompt report to the Sub-Inspector of the Railway Police. P.W.2, Railway Guard, also corroborated P.W.1 regarding the prompt complaint given by P.W.1 against the petitioner that the latter had given trouble and had attempted to assault him. The Guard knew the petitioner before. So far as the facts of the case on which the conviction was based there are no good reasons to differ from the findings of the Court below and I accept it. Learned Counsel Sri S. Padmanabhan appearing for the petitioner however urged that the conviction of the petitioner under section 353, Indian Penal Code, should be re-examined from the point of view whether the Railway Ticket Examiner should be considered to be a public servant in the light of the relevant provisions of the Indian Railways Act and the Indian Penal Code. Section 3 (7) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, defines a ‘railway servant ‘as one employed by a railway administration in connection with the service of a railway. Section 137 of the Act, before its amendment in 1955 reads: "(1) Every railway servant shall be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code. Section 137 of the Act, before its amendment in 1955 reads: "(1) Every railway servant shall be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code. ***** (4) Notwithstanding anything in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, a railway servant shall not be deemed to be a public servant for any of the purposes of that Code except those mentioned in sub-section (1)." In 1955 by on amendment sub-section (4) was deleted and sub-section (1) was recast as follows:- (1) Every railway servant, not being a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), shall be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of Chapter IX and section 409 of that Code." Before the amendment in 1955, the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (4), taken together emphasised the fact that a railway servant shall be deemed to be a public servant only for the limited purposes of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code, and not for any other purpose, even if it would bring him within the definition of a " public servant " in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. But wherever a railway is State-owned, the servants of that railway automatically become Government officers. Such of the provisions in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, which refer to officers of the Government with reference to the duties they have got to discharge, will be automatically attracted in the case of officers in the employment of State-owned Railways. Section 137 (4) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (before the amendment in 1955) stood in the way of such railway servants being deemed to be public servants for the purpose of section 21, Indian Penal Code. The amendment in 1955 deleted section 137 (4) and recast section 137 (1). There is the use of the phrase "not being a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code" in opposition to "railway servant", in the amended section 137 (1). This phrase must be treated as having an adjectival effect, on the words "railway servant". There is the use of the phrase "not being a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code" in opposition to "railway servant", in the amended section 137 (1). This phrase must be treated as having an adjectival effect, on the words "railway servant". In other words it means that those railway servants, who are not public servants as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, shall be deemed to be public servants only for the purpose of Chapter IX and section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. One can recall in this connection, that even after the State has taken over almost all railways in India, there are still a few small private owned railways like Martin Burn Ltd., Railways and McLeod & Co.‘s Ltd., Railways and so on. This is made clear by the Statement of ‘Objects and Reasons’ published in the Gazette of India dated nth December, 1954 at the time of the introduction of the Bill relating to the amendment in 1955. It reads: "Under section 137 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, every railway servant is deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code only and not for any other purpose mentioned in that Code. Almost all railway servants are now Government servants and therefore their position requires to be equated with the position of any other officer in the service or pay of the Government who is already public servant for all the purposes of the Code by reason of the definition contained in section 21 of the Code." Therefore the amendment was not intended to affect the position of railway servants, who had become already Government servants in the case of State-owned railways. It was intended to apply to the servants of such railways, as were not affected by the State taking over the railways, but remained under the control of private agencies. In their cases they would be public servants only for the purpose of section 409 of the Indian Penal Code or any of the sections in Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code. This appears to be the real effect of section 137 (1) of the Indian Railways Act after its amendment in 1955. Two decisions of the Supreme Court were cited before me in this connection. This appears to be the real effect of section 137 (1) of the Indian Railways Act after its amendment in 1955. Two decisions of the Supreme Court were cited before me in this connection. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., in Ram Krishnan v. Delhi State1, dealt with a case that arose before the amendment to section 137. At page 479 the learned Judge observed: “The result is that before the amendment, railway servants were treated as public servants only for the purposes of Chapter IX, Penal Code, but now as the result of the amendment all railway servants have become public servants not only for the limited purpose but also generally”. It would be clear from the discussion in the previous paragraph, that what his Lordship intended was that the restriction, which sub-section (4) imposed on railway servants becoming public servants for the purpose of the Indian Penal Code, had been removed by the amendment. A subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in P.R. Chowdhary v. State of U.P.2 also dealt with a case before the amendment. At page 1312 of the report there is an observation: “In other words, under the amended provision of section 137(1) railway servants would be deemed to be public servants under section 21 of the Indian Penal Code only for the purposes of Chapter IX and section 409 of that Code.” In the light of what I have stated above, this observation can refer only to servants of railways which were not taken over by the Government, because a few paragraphs earlier in the same judgment, we find this observation: “The East Indian Railway which had employed the appellants was at the material time owned by the Government of India and managed and run by it, and so if the status of the appellants had to be judged at the material date solely by reference to section 21 of the Code there would be no difficulty in holding that they are public servants as defined by the said section.” Thus section 137(1) of the Railways Act, after its amendment in 1955 deals only with the position of railway servants, who, by virtue of their being employed by private railways, could not be deemed to be public servants under section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore I am of the opinion that P.W.1 in the present case an employee of the State-owned Southern Railways was a public servant. He had the duty of preventing offences and giving information of the offence of travelling without tickets and so on. It is represented finally that there is no evidence that the petitioner actually used the knife. There is evidence that soon after the occurrence, be made a report to the Head Constable about his luggage being lost. In the course of the incident as to what happened in the compartment there is only the evidence of P.W.1 and we are not in a position to know the full background. It is represented that the petitioner has undergone nearly a month out of the period of imprisonment. I do not think, in the above circumstances, it is necessary to send him back to the jail to undergo the rest of the period of imprisonment. The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. With this modification this Revision Case is dismissed. R.M. ------ Sentence reduced and Revision dismissed.