Judgment : The accused in C.R.C.No. 11410 of 1992 on the file of Special Magistrate, Madras Central Railway Station, Madras has filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C, to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the same. 2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed a charge against the petitioner for offence under Sec.141 of the Railways Act alleging that on 26.12.1992 at about 8.00 p.m. the accused travelled in coach No. 8358 in train No. 6511 (Express) pulled ICC. in between two stations at Km.13/39-27 without sufficient reasons and hence he is liable to be punished under Sec.141 of the Railways Act. 3. Mr.K. Jeyakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that another person was convicted for the very same offence and on his plea of guilt in C.R.C.No. 11411 of 1992 for pulling of the chain and stopping by adopting this process can be made only by one person and that it cannot be in the same time by the two persons; that one person was already convicted for stopping the train at the same time and so the petitioner herein could not be liable for that offence. Learned counsel would further submitting that according to first information report the petitioner and the accused concerned in C.R.C.No. 11411 of 1992 were said to have committed the offence at the same time and that they should have been charged in the same case and there is misjoinder of the accused and so it is violative of Sec. 223(a), Crl.P.C. and on this ground alone, the charge is liable to be quashed. 4. I have heard Mr. Sekar, learned Advocate for Railways on the above aspects. 5. I have carefully considered the submission made by rival counsels. On a lease scrutiny of the First Information Report, I find that so far as this petitioner is concerned, the informant has stated that he saw the petitioner pulling the chain for the purpose of stopping the train. In the First Information Report, it is also stated that the at the same time, constable Balakrishnan was bringing one Arumugam for stopping the train from the other side of the coach. It cannot be ruled out that both the persons were pulling the chain at the same time, in which case, both would be liable for the offence alleged. In the First Information Report, it is also stated that the at the same time, constable Balakrishnan was bringing one Arumugam for stopping the train from the other side of the coach. It cannot be ruled out that both the persons were pulling the chain at the same time, in which case, both would be liable for the offence alleged. Regarding misjoinder of the charges, it does not appear that they have acted in concert, but they have acted individually at different places. While so, it cannot be stated that it was ‘in the course of the same transaction’ in which case alone Sec. 223(a), Criminal Procedure Code would be attracted. Since none of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner finds acceptance with me, inevitably this petition will have to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.