Judgment Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacherjee, J. 1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated the 6th April, 1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in C case No. 94179 started on the basis of complaint lodged in connection with RPF Post Case No. 1(21) 79 dated 7.4.79 under s. 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. By his impugned order the learned Magistrate framed charge under s. 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 against the accused Ram Sankar Chowhan, but!, discharged the other accused Rupa Shaw under s. 245(1) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order of discharge passed by the Learned Magistrate in respect of the accused Opposite Party, Rupa Shaw, the State of West Bengal has moved this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 2. At the very outset a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Sudipta Moitra, the Learned Advocate for the accused Opposite Party that the revision petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, State of West Bengal. His contention is that the case was started before the Learned Magistrate on the basis of a complaint filed by one Shri Chandrikapada Roy, Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force under the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and as such the State of West Bengal has no locus standi to move this Court in its revisional jurisdiction against the order of discharge passed in that case by the Learned Magistrate. It is submitted by him that it is only the original complainant who alone is competent to file any revision petition before this Court if he feels aggrieved by any order passed by the Learned Magistrate in the case which was started on the basis of a complaint filed by him. 3. The question which is required to be decided at the first instance, therefore, is whether this criminal revision is maintainable at the instance of the State of West Bengal. In support of his proposition that none but the original complainant is entitled to move this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, Mr. Moitra has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Thakur Ram vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966, Supreme Court, 911. There, in connection with police report case a revision was filed by private party. In support of his proposition that none but the original complainant is entitled to move this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, Mr. Moitra has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Thakur Ram vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966, Supreme Court, 911. There, in connection with police report case a revision was filed by private party. In that context, the Supreme Court observed thus :- "No doubt, the terms of s. 435 under which the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge was invoked are very wide and he could even have taken up the matter suo motu. It would, however, not be irrelevant to bear in mind the fact that the Court's jurisdiction was invoked by a private party. The criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book". (See 435 referred to above relates to the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898). 4. It has been argued by Mr. Moitra that the basic principle that emerges from the said decision of the Supreme Court is that the revisional jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked by a party other than the complainant in a complaint case or except by State in a case started on a police report. I have given my anxious consideration to this argument advanced by Mr. Moitra, but I am sorry that I cannot subscribe to the same. On the other hand, it cannot escape notice that the Supreme Court "in the said decision has clearly observed that barring a few exceptions in criminal matters the party which is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large. On the other hand, it cannot escape notice that the Supreme Court "in the said decision has clearly observed that barring a few exceptions in criminal matters the party which is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large. Even if the said decision of the Supreme Court is considered an authority for the proposition that it is only the com plan ant in a complaint case or the State in a police report case who or which, as the case may be, is competent to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Court, yet that is not an "inflexible proposition as is evident from the expression "Barring a few exceptions" as used by the Supreme Court in that context in the said decision. What those exceptions are of course have not been delineated "in the said decision but then it is amply adumbrated that in exceptional circumstances the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked even by a private party or by a person or authority other than the complainant. 5. Mr. Moitra has also relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Kerala Transport Company vs. D. S. Soma Shekar, 1982 Cri.L.J. 1065. In that case an investigation was started on the basis of FIR lodged by the informant and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet. Ultimately, certain matter came up before the High Court in two revisions, one at the instance or the informant and the other at the instance of the State. The revision petition filed by the informant M/s. Kerala Transport Company was, however, held by the High Court as not maintainable in view of the fact that the State had come up in revision in the same matter. In that connection the High Court made the following observation : The State being saddled with the primary responsibility of safeguarding of the social interests of the community at large is to take all necessary steps to book the person who has acted against the social interest of the community. If that is so, it cannot be said that M/s. Kerala Transport Company, could maintain and continue the aforesaid revision petitions in view of the State having challenged the very impugned orders. . . . . . . . . ." 6. Mr. If that is so, it cannot be said that M/s. Kerala Transport Company, could maintain and continue the aforesaid revision petitions in view of the State having challenged the very impugned orders. . . . . . . . . ." 6. Mr. Subir Ganguly, on the other hand, appearing on behalf of the petitioner cited the decision of the Supreme Court in R. I. Thakkar vs. A.P. Jhavery, 1973, Supreme Court cases (Cri) 566, in support of his submission that in a fit case the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked even by a private party or by one other than the complainant. The following observation of the Supreme Court in that decision has been relied upon by Mr. Ganguly, in particular :"The opening words of s', 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, viz, in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which has been reported for orders or which otherwise comes to its knowledge", as observed by this Court in the case of the State of Kerala vs. Narayani Amma Kamala Devi, produce the result that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court by being moved either by the convicted person himself or by any other person or suo motu on the basis of its own knowledge derived from any source whatsoever without being moved by any person at all. All that is necessary to bring the High Court's powers of revision into operation is such information as makes the High Court think that an order made by a Subordinate Court is fit for the exercise of its powers of revision". Mr. Ganguly has also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Pratap vs. State of V.P., 1973 SCC (Cri), 496 where it has been observed thus : "The power under s. 439 Cr.P.C. is one which the High Court can exercise suo motu and all that a person filing a revision petition under that section does is to draw the Court's attention to an illegal, improper and incorrect finding, sentence or order of a Subordinate Court. The fact that in this case the brother of deceased filed revision petition and the Government did not do so does not affect the powers of the High Court under that section". The fact that in this case the brother of deceased filed revision petition and the Government did not do so does not affect the powers of the High Court under that section". From the decisions cited, it will appear that revision at the instance of a private party or a third party is not absolutely barred, and in appropriate circumstances revision is maintainable at the instance of a private or a third party. The decisions reported in AIR 1931, Calcutta 410 (Ramendra Chandra vs. Emperor) and AIR 1961 Allahabad 447 (S. P. Dubey vs. Norsingh Bahadur) are also instance where revision petition at the instance of third party was entertained for consideration. 7. Now we take up for consideration whether the present revision is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner State. As we have seen the prosecution in this case was started by a complaint filed by an Officer of the Railway Protection Force (Force, for short) before the Magistrate under the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Under s. 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 one who is found or is proved to have been, in possession of any Railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained becomes liable to punishment unless he proves that the Railway property came to his possession lawfully. The offender may be punished under the said section with imprisonment for a term which may extend even upto five years. Under s. 6 any superior officer or member of the Railway Protection Force may, without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person who has been concerned in an offence punishable under the Act or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. But s. 5 of the Act, provides that an offence under the Act shall not be cognizable notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure: Section 8(1) of the Act empowers an officer of the Force to enquire into the charge against a person arrested for an offence punishable under the Act. For this propose such officer of the Force may exercise certain powers of the officer-incharge of a police station. The officer making such enquiry, however, is not competent to submit charge-sheet which a police officer investigating a cognizable offence can do. For this propose such officer of the Force may exercise certain powers of the officer-incharge of a police station. The officer making such enquiry, however, is not competent to submit charge-sheet which a police officer investigating a cognizable offence can do. On the basis of the enquiry made by him, the officer of the Force has to file a complaint before the competent Magistrate if the enquiry reveals commission of an offence under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Thereafter the proceeding goes on following the procedure provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure for proceeding with a complaint filed by a public servant acting in discharge of his official duties. 8. Here, it will be relevant to look to the purpose for which the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 was passed by the Parliament. The material part of the objects and reasons for moving the Bill which became the Act, is quoted below: "2. At present, offences against railway property are being dealt with under Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955, but this Act has been found, by experience, to be ineffective in tackling with the enormity of the problems of theft and pilferages on railways. As it is, this Act makes unlawful possession of railway stores an offence, but it is only applicable to unlawful possession of railway property owned by the railways, and does not cover the offences relating to good~ and parcels entrusted to railways for transport. 3. Further, the offences under this Act are investigated and enquired into by local police in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It has been observed that the two Agencies, i.e., the Government Railway Police and Railway Protection Force, which are at present provided to deal with crimes on railways find themselves handicapped, for different reasons, in effectively dealing with the problem of theft and pilferage of railway property. The railways are spread out over a large part of the country and property, etc., entrusted to them is carried from one part to another usually crossing boundaries of different States. The jurisdiction of State Police being restricted to the State boundary only, it becomes difficult at times for the police to make thorough and fruitful investigation into offences relating to railway property. Besides, investigation of cases in respect of railway property also requires a specialised knowledge of railway working. The jurisdiction of State Police being restricted to the State boundary only, it becomes difficult at times for the police to make thorough and fruitful investigation into offences relating to railway property. Besides, investigation of cases in respect of railway property also requires a specialised knowledge of railway working. The Railway Protection Force, on the other hand, are not at present equipped with requisite powers of investigation and prosecution, with the result that' whatever action they take in respect of prevention etc., is taken just in aid of the State police who conduct investigation and prosecution, etc. Due to this fact of two agencies being responsible for achieving the same object the machinery has not proved as effective as it ought to have. 4. It is, therefore, proposed to replace the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955, by a more comprehensive Act so as to bring within its ambit the unlawful possession of goods entrusted to the railway as common carriers and to make the punishment for such offences more deterrent. It is also proposed to invest powers of investigation and prosecution of offences relating to railway property in the Railway Protection Force in the same manner as in the Excise and Customs". 9. It is, therefore, evident that one of the objects of passing the Act was to invest the Railway Protection Force with the powers of investigation and prosecution of offences relating to Railway Property and to divest the State Police of such powers which they had been hitherto enjoying in respect of such matter. The Railway Protection Force is constituted and maintained by the Central Government under s. 3 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. Section 8 of the said Act vests Superintendence of the Force in the Central Government. It is, therefore, clear that by divesting the State Police of the powers of investigation and prosecution (and precisely for that purpose an offence under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, has been made (non-cognizable) and by simultaneously investing the Railway Protection Force with such powers the Parliament intended to entrust the Central Government with the responsibility of prosecuting the offenders punishable under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 in preference to, nay, rather to the exclusion of the State Government and its machinery. This, however, is not to say that the assistance of the State Government machinery cannot be invoked by the Railway Protection Force, where necessary, for bringing the offenders to book. Rather, not infrequently the Railway Protection Force takes the help of the local police for arresting an offender or for making search and seizure, but in such cases the primary responsibility rests with the Railway Protection Force and the State Police only extends its help to the Force to the extent such help is sought. 10. The question whether in connection with any proceeding relating to an offence under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 the State can maintain a revision has to be examined in the aforesaid background where the Parliament has vested the Railway Protection Force under the control and Superintendence of the Central Government with powers to enquire into and launch prosecution in respect of offences under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 to the exclusion of the State police. To my mind 'it will be contrary to the spirit and the object of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 if the State or its functionaries are allowed to move the Court in revision against orders passed in proceedings relating to offences punishable under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The act of filing a revision petition by the State in such a case rather amounts to usurpation of the function of the Railway Protection Force or for that matter of the Central Government, in the matter of pursuing prosecution for offences punishable under the said Act which having regard to the object of enacting the said Act cannot be allowed. It must, therefore, be held that the present revision at the instance of the State is not maintainable. 11. In this connection, I would however like to point out that the argument advanced by Mr. Moitra that such a revision is maintainable at the instance of the complainant officer alone who filed the complaint and by none else cannot be endorsed. It is needless to mention that the Officer of the Force making an enquiry under the Act and filing a complaint in respect of an offence punishable under the said Act before a Magistrate does so in his official capacity and in discharge of official duties and not in his personal capacity or for any personal purpose. It is needless to mention that the Officer of the Force making an enquiry under the Act and filing a complaint in respect of an offence punishable under the said Act before a Magistrate does so in his official capacity and in discharge of official duties and not in his personal capacity or for any personal purpose. It can very well be visualised that an officer of the Force who files a complaint under the said Act may retire from service before the case is finally disposed of and thereafter obviously he will have no official obligation or opportunity to pursue the prosecution. There will therefore be a gross failure of justice if it is held that a revision cannot be maintained at the instance of anyone other than the complainant who filed the complaint and launched the prosecution in his capacity as a departmental officer and in discharge of his official duties. Necessarily the responsibility of pursuing the prosecution to its end rests with the Railway Protection Force under the control of the Central Government. It is the Railway Protection Force and the Central Government who are interested in the prosecution in a more vital way than the complainant who merely acts as an official functionary discharging his official responsibility. The submission made by Mr. Moitra that it is the complainant and the complainant alone who is competent to file a revision and none else is not entertainable in the interest of justice else justice is likely to be defeated in a good number of cases where the departmental officer originally filing the complaint may not be available at a later stage, due to death or retirement, for moving the superior court in appellate or revisional jurisdiction in connection with the prosecution launched against an offender. However, this aspect of the matter not being material or necessary for the disposal of the present revision I do not propose to dwell upon it any further here. The present revisional application not being maintainable at the instance of the State of West Bengal for reasons discussed above, this criminal revision is dismissed and the Rule discharged. Revisional application dismissed. Rule discharged.