JUDGMENT T.P. Mukerji, J. - This case was first heard by a learned single Judge of this Court, but as it involves an important question of law on which there is divergence of judicial opinion, he considered it necessary that the case should be decided by a Bench of this Court. 2. The Applicant Ram Prakash is employed as Chief Train Examiner in the North Eastern Railway and he was prosecuted by the GRP at Mathura Junction Railway Station u/s 120 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and Section 323 of the IPC in connection with an incident which took place between him and one Goverdhan Sharma, another Railway servant, on 28-5-1965 in the premises of the said railway station. At the trial of the case before the Special Railway Magistrate, Mathura, the Applicant raised a preliminary objection that he being a Railway servant, could not be prosecuted u/s 120 of the Indian Railways Act. The learned Magistrate took the view that Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act would not apply to the case of the Applicant if he was on duty at the time the incident took place but, if he was 08 duty at that time there was no bar to his prosecution under that section. He, therefore, made an order for production of evidence as to whether the Applicant was on duty or not when the incident had taken place. The Applicant thereupon filed a petition in revision before the learned Addi. District Magistrate (Judicial) Mathura, to make a reference to the High Court to quash the order of the learned Magistrate in point. The learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) relying on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court, M.C. Desai, J. (as he then was) in the case of Vishwanath Pandey v. State 1960 AWR 325 , held that Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act does not apply to a railway servant and he has recommended that the impugned order of the Special Railway Magistrate be quashed. 3. The only question to be decided here is whether the word "person" used in Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act includes a railway servant or not. It may be pointed out here that Section 120 occurs in Ch. 3. The only question to be decided here is whether the word "person" used in Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act includes a railway servant or not. It may be pointed out here that Section 120 occurs in Ch. IX of the said Act which contains Sections 87 to 134 under the heading "Penalties and offences" of these, Sections 87 to 98 have been grouped under the sub-head "Forfeitures by Railway Companies". Sections 99 to 105 under subhead "Offences by Railway Servants" and Sections 106 to 130 under sub-head "Other Offences", while Sections 131 to 134 have been grouped under the sub-head "Procedure." In this case we are concerned with the construction of Section 120 which falls within the sub head "Other Offences". On behalf of the Appellant the contention was advanced that when specific provisions have Been enacted in Sections 99 to 105 in respect of offences by railway servants the sections grouped under sub-head "Other Offences", including Section 120, relate to offences committed by those who are not railway servants. The contention, however, cannot be accepted. The rubric of a statute may be looked into only when the language of the section is ambiguous, but not where it is clear. In the present case, as we shall notice presently, the language of Section 120 is perfectly clear and there is no ambiguity or obscurity in it. Consequently, it is not permissible to refer to the heading or the rubric for the construction of the terms of Section 120. Moreover, offences under the sub head "Offences by Railway Servants" cannot be committed by others but that does not mean that railway servants cannot commit other offences. The heading "Other Offences" which governs Section 120, means offences other than those mentioned before and not offences committed by others, that is, by persons other than railway servants. The sub-heading does not, therefore, purport to exclude railway servants. 4. Section 120 of the Railways Act may be set out here: 120--Drunkenness or nuisance on a railway. The heading "Other Offences" which governs Section 120, means offences other than those mentioned before and not offences committed by others, that is, by persons other than railway servants. The sub-heading does not, therefore, purport to exclude railway servants. 4. Section 120 of the Railways Act may be set out here: 120--Drunkenness or nuisance on a railway. If a person in any railway carriage or upon any part of a railway-- (a) is in a state of intoxication, or (b) commits any nuisance or act of indecency, or uses obscene or abusive language, or (c) wilfully and without lawful excuse interferes with the comfort of any passenger or extinguishes any lamp, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to fifty rupees, in addition to the forfeiture of any fare which he may have paid and of any pass or ticket which he may have obtained or purchased and may be removed from the railway by any railway servant. The word "person" used in this section is a term having wide amplitude and in its plain and ordinary sense it refers to any human being whether a railway servant or not. There is nothing in the context of this section nor in the other sections of this Chapter, to warrant the view that the word does not include a railway servant. In this connection it was pointed out on behalf of the Applicant that there are special provisions in the Act, namely, Sections 99 to 105 under which railway servants are punishable for culpable actions and dereliction of duty. In particular, it was pointed out that Section 100 was specifically enacted to deal with railway servants who are in a state of intoxication or drunkenness while on duty. Hence it was contended that Section 120 was not intended to apply to railway servants in similar circumstances. To hold otherwise, it was argued, would lead to duplication of provisions in respect of the same offence. Section 100 of the Act provides as follows: 100. Drunkenness. Hence it was contended that Section 120 was not intended to apply to railway servants in similar circumstances. To hold otherwise, it was argued, would lead to duplication of provisions in respect of the same offence. Section 100 of the Act provides as follows: 100. Drunkenness. If a railway servant is in a state of intoxication while on duty, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to fifty rupees, or, where the improper performance of the duty would be likely to endanger the safety of any person travelling or being upon a railway, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both. 5. It would appear that Section 100 applies to a railway servant in a state of drunkenness when on duty. He is not punishable u/s 100 if he is not on duty nor on this view would he be liable under this section if he is guilty of any of the other offences mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 120, namely if he "commits a nuisance or act of indecency, or uses obscene or abusive language, or wilfully and without lawful excuse interferes with the comfort of any passenger or extinguishes any map". It cannot be conceived' that the Legislature intended that a railway servant committing such acts of misdemeanour would get away with impunity. It appears that the Legislature thought it necessary, by enacting Section 100, to provide for greater punishment in the case of railway servants, in a state of drunkenness, doing their duty improperly if such improper performance of duty is likely to endanger the safety of passengers. Of course, it cannot be gain-said that if the word "person" in Section 120 is understood to refer to a railway servant also there would be some amount of overlapping between Section 100 and Clause (a) of Section 120; for instance, a railway servant on duty entering a railway carriage in a state of drunkenness would be liable to prosecution u/s 100 as well as Under Clause (a) of Section 120. But this fact alone would not warrant the conclusion that the generality of Section 120 was, in any way, intended to be limited or curtailed. In this connection it would be useful to reproduce the following observation from Maxwell's book on Interpretation of Statutes, (11th Edition, at pp. But this fact alone would not warrant the conclusion that the generality of Section 120 was, in any way, intended to be limited or curtailed. In this connection it would be useful to reproduce the following observation from Maxwell's book on Interpretation of Statutes, (11th Edition, at pp. 306-307): Provisions sometimes found in statutes, enacting imperfectly or for particular cases only that which was already and more widely the law, have occasionally furnished ground for the contention that an intention to alter the general law, was to be inferred from the partial or limited enactment, resting on the maxim expressio unius, exclusio alterius. But that maxim is inapplicable in such cases. 6. It is often found in criminal law that the same act or omission falls under two or more definitions of offences under the same Act. That does not make one or the other section inapplicable. The accused can be convicted of any or all of the offences. Section 71, IPC only provides that in such cases the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences. There is, therefore, no bar to the trial u/s 120 of the Railways Act. 7. There is yet another cogent reason in support of the view we take of the matter. As we have already referred to, Sections 131 to 134, occurring in Ch. IX of the Indian Railways Act, lay down the "procedure" to be followed in the prosecution for offences referred to in the earlier sections. In particular Section 131 lays down: 131. Arrest for offences against certain Section (1) If a person commits any offence mentioned in Sees. 100, 101, 108, 112, 119, 120, 121, 126, 127, 128 or 129 or in Section 130 Sub-section (1), he may bear-rested without warrantor other written authority by any railway servant or police officer, or by any other person whom such warrant or officer may call to his aid. (2) A person so arrested shall, with the least possible delay, be taken before a Magistrate having authority to try him or commit him for trial. Thus, u/s 131 "if a person commits any offence mentioned in Sections 100, 101...120..., he may be arrested without warrant or other written authority by any railway servant or police officer". (2) A person so arrested shall, with the least possible delay, be taken before a Magistrate having authority to try him or commit him for trial. Thus, u/s 131 "if a person commits any offence mentioned in Sections 100, 101...120..., he may be arrested without warrant or other written authority by any railway servant or police officer". Now, Sections 100 and 101 refer to offences committed by a railway servant on duty and quite obviously, such railway servant has been referred to as a "person" in Section 131. The word "person" in Section 131, therefore, includes a railway servant to whom Sections 100 and 101 are applicable. According to well established rules of construction, the same word used in Section 120 has to be understood in the same sense unless there is something in the context to indicate a contrary intention. 8. u/s 120, the offending person is liable to be removed from the railway "by any railway servant". In the case of Gurunath Shankar Godkhindi Vs. Emperor, AIR 1937 Bom 357 Beaumont, C.J. has observed that it is hardly conceivable that the Legislature intended that if the offending person is a senior railway official like a station master, he can be removed by an ordinary railway servant, such as a porter. His Lordship observed that it would be opposed to the maintenance of good discipline for a senior railway official to be removed from the railway by a junior official. His Lordship, therefore, held that Section 120 is not intended to include any act done by a railway servant acting as such. In the Allahabad case referred to above M.G. Desai, J. (as he then was) agreed with the view taken by Beaumont, C.J. in the above case. Evidently, their Lordship's attention was not drawn to the clear provisions of Section 131 under which a railway servant committing any of the offences mentioned in Sections 100, 101 etc. may even be arrested by any other railway servant or police officer or by any other person whom such servant or officer may call to his aid. Apart from this, questions of policy or possible effect of the decision are irrelevant in the construction of statutes. Referring to the criticism made by Beaumont, C.J. as above, Bose, J. of the Nagpur High Court expressed himself as follows in Gajadhar Singh v. Emperor AIR 1946 Nag. Apart from this, questions of policy or possible effect of the decision are irrelevant in the construction of statutes. Referring to the criticism made by Beaumont, C.J. as above, Bose, J. of the Nagpur High Court expressed himself as follows in Gajadhar Singh v. Emperor AIR 1946 Nag. 200: This criticism has great force, particularly, as it comes from such an eminent source, but as against it is the recent pronouncement of the Judicial Committee where their Lordships say that it is not for the courts to consider policies or the possible effect of their decisions. They must; give effect to the words of a statute, where they are plain whatever the consequences. Now the word "person" is plain. It includes everybody. 9. The decision of Bose, J. in the Nagpur case was noticed by M.C. Desai, J. in the case of Vishwanath Pandey (1), but he did not agree with that view. With great respect we are of the view that the case of Vishwanath Pandey (1) was not correctly decided. The view taken by Chowdhary, J., another Judge of this Court, in an earlier case Lalit Vs. State, AIR 1957 All 636 , was that the word "person" in Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act means any person whether a railway servant or not. This view accords with the decision of the Madras High Court in A.F. Cuffly v. Muhamad Ali AIR 1919 Mad. 971 and the K. Appal Swamy Vs. Emperor, AIR 1934 Patna 52 . The Rajasthan High Court in the case of Durga Prasad and Others Vs. State, AIR 1962 Raj 92 considered all these cases and expressed agreement with the view taken in Madras, Patna, Nagpur and the earlier Allahabad decision. 10. We hold, accordingly, that Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act is applicable to a railway servant, whether he is on or or off duty. The reference of the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) on this point is rejected. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial of the Applicant u/s 120 of the Indian Railways Act without entering into the question whether he was on duty or not at the time of the alleged occurrence.