Honble SAXENA, J – This revision has been preferred against the order dated 24.9.86 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, whereby he set aside the order dated 17.6.85 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Jodhpur u/s 258 Cr.P.C. read with Section 20(3) of Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (in short `the Act) stopping the criminal proceedings for the offences u/s 120 & 121of the Indian Railways Act and u/s 323 IPC against the petitioner and co-accused -Chandra Bhan and releasing them. (2). Briefly, the relevant facts are that on 13.12.83 at 12.20. A.M. complainant -Jagdish, who was posted as Rakshak, Railway Protection Force, O.P.Bhagat ki kothi, Jodhpur submitted a written report to S.H.O. G.R.P. Station, Jodhpur to the effect that on 12.12.83 he was on duty from 16 hours to 24 hours in Railway yard of Bhagat ki kothi Railway Station, that since one train had been cancelled at the direction of Train Guard, he had gone to ASMs Office to fetch the seal book, that at about 23.15 hours, he saw petitioner Syed Azar Ahmad, Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force and co-accused Chandrabhan-Rakshak coming from the yard and that the petitioner asked him as to why he had come to the officer leaving his duty from the yard and told him that he make would an entry against him in the daily-diary (rojnamcha). It is alleged that complainant-Jagdish gave the daily diary to the petitioner, who told him ^^eknjpkSn ^^M;wVh Bhd djks rqEgsa reht ugha gSaA cwb rq>s Bhd dj nwWaxkA the complainant asked the petitioner as to why he was hurling abuses to him, that thereupon the petitioner got engaged felled him by giving him a push, that he got up caught hold of him and the petitioner dealt 3-4 danda-blows causing injuries to him. The petitioner also took his pistol and threaten to shoot him. Thereupon complainant Jagdish fled away after taking that `danda. On the report of the S.H.O. Police Station. GRP, Jodhpur,drew the formal FIR, got the injuries of Jagdish examined by the doctor and seized the said `danda. After usual investigation on 27.3.84 filed challan against the petitioner and co-accused Chandrabhan Singh u/ss 120,121 Indian Railways Act and u/s 323 IPC in the court of lear- ned Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Jodhpur. On the report of the S.H.O. Police Station. GRP, Jodhpur,drew the formal FIR, got the injuries of Jagdish examined by the doctor and seized the said `danda. After usual investigation on 27.3.84 filed challan against the petitioner and co-accused Chandrabhan Singh u/ss 120,121 Indian Railways Act and u/s 323 IPC in the court of lear- ned Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Jodhpur. (3) On 4.2.1985 petitioner and co-accused submitted an application u/s 20(3) of the Act alongwith the copy of General Diary dated 12.12.83, asserting that since no one months notice was given. Criminal trial against them was legally not maintainable and praying that criminal proceedings be dropped. (4) The learned Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Jodhpur after hearing the parties, by his order dated 17.6.1985 held that the alleged acts were done by the accused persons in the discharge of their duties and that since no notice u/s 20(3) of the Act was given by the complainant to them or their superior officers; further proceedings in the criminal case was not justified. Accordingly he released the accused persons and u/s 258 Cr. P.C. dropped the proceedings against them. (5) Aggrieved by the said order, the State filed revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, who by his impugned judgment held that the alleged acts against the petitioner and co-accused were not done by them in the discharge of their duties, and as such, the provisions of Sec 20(3) of the Act can not be pressed into service in this case. He accordingly set- aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Railways) and remanded the case with the direction that after recording the evidence, if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the alleged acts imputed against the petitioner and co-accused were done in the discharge of their duties, then the Magistrate shall be at liberty to pass necessary orders u/s 20(3) of the Act. Dissatisfied by the said order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. (6) I have heard Shri P.N. Mohnani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.S. Rathore, the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of lower court in extenso, court. Dissatisfied by the said order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. (6) I have heard Shri P.N. Mohnani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.S. Rathore, the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of lower court in extenso, court. (7) Shri Mohnani has vigorously canvassed that the learned Sessions Judge has mis-interpreted the provisions of Section- 20(3) of the Act and committed an illegality in holding that the acts imputed against the petitioner were not done in discharge of his duties or intended to be done under the powers conferred by the Act. Shri Mohnani has asserted that the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act are mandatory in nature and that those squarely apply to the facts of this case and, as such, the learned Sessions Judge has exceeded in exercising powers of revisional jurisdiction and that the findings given by the Sessions Judge are perverse and illegal resulting in flagrant mis-carriage of justice. (8) On the other hand, Shri Rathore the learned PP has asserted that hurling filthy abuses, voluntarily causing injuries by inflicting danda blows and taking out the pistol and threatening to shoot his subordinate per se can not be construed as the acts done by the petitioner or intended to be done under the in this case and the petitioner can not get any protection for his illegal criminal acts. He has supported the impugned order and reiterated the reasonings enumerated therein. (9). I have given my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. In this case the FIR was promptly lodged at GRP Station (Police Station), Jodhpur, which is situated at a distance of 3 Km from the place of occurrence, on the same night at 12.30 A.M. i.e. within one and a quarter hours. Complainant Jagdish had sustained injuries, which were noted by the S.H.O. GRP Station in the FIR.The Medical Jurist, M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur, who examined Jagdish also found a bruise 7 x1 1/2cm parallel in nature on the right gluteal region, another bruise of the same diamension on his right thigh and a third bruise parallel in nature on his left thigh. The duration of those injuries was within twelve hours. The duration of those injuries was within twelve hours. As per allegations detailed in the FIR, Jagdish had come from the Yard to the ASMs office to get the seal book, that the petitioner, who did not find Jagdish on his duty in the yard asked him to give the daily diary (Rojnamcha) and told him that he would make a report against him, that when Jagdish gave his explanation;the petitioner hurled him filthy abuses and on his protest, pushed and felled him down and when Jagdish got up; co-accused Chandrabhan caught hold of him while the petitioner inflicted 3-4 danda blows to him causing injuries and that the petitioner also took out his pistol and threatened to shoot him. Alleged eye witnesses Bansi Lal and VishnuLal in their police statements have also stated like wise. The injuries enumerated in the MLR prima facie corroborate the fact that Jagdish had sustained injuries by blunt object. Therefore, from the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer, it stands prima facie established that the petitioner had hurled filthy abuses to Jagdish, dealt danda-blows causing injuries to him and had also threatened to kill him after taking out his pistol. Therefore, without recording the evidence in the case, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held at this stage that the aforementioned imputed acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner were done by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty or were done or intended to be done under the powers conferred by, or in pursuance of, any provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. The learned Sessions Judge has, therefore, correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act and rightly held that at this stage it can not be said that the alleged acts imputed against the petitioner were done by him under the powers conferred by the Act or the rules made thereunder. In my considered opinion, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act can not be pressed into service at this stage. In my considered opinion, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act can not be pressed into service at this stage. (10) In Pukhraj vs. State of Rajasthan (1), the Apex Court reiterating the prin- nciple of law enunciated in Matajog Dobey vs. H.C. Bhari (2) has held as under: ``Where a power is conferred or a duty imposed by statute or otherwise, and there is nothing said expressly inhibiting the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty by any limitations or restrictions, it is reasonable to hold that it carries with it the power of doing all such acts or employing such means as are reasonable necessary for such execution. If in the exercise of the power or the performance of the official duty, improper or unlawful obstruction or resistance is encountered there must be the right to use reasonable means to remove the obstruction or overcome the resistance. This accords with common sense and does not seem contrary to any principle of law. (11) As per incident narrated in the rojnamcha dated 12. 12.83; the petitioner did not find complainant Jagdish in the Railway Yard but found him sitting in a room near the RPF Office and when the petitioner asked the latter as to why did he not check the railway carriages;Jagdish started abusing the petitioner and took the danda lying on the table and when co-accused Chandrabhan intervened; Jagdish took the danda and went away. The veracity and correctness of the facts mentioned in the Rojnamcha can only be ascertained the evidence is recorded. At this stage, I do not find any valid and sturdy reason to disbelieve the facts mentioned in the FIR and the contents of the MLR of Jagdish . (12) Shri Mohnani has placed reliance on the case of Parmjit Singh Bedi Vs.Dhaneshwar Sah(3) but the facts of that case are at poles apart with the case in hand. In that case, Parmjit Singh Bedi, who was the Inspector of the RPF having received an information that some criminals were engaged in removing properties from the railway workshop, went to the spot alongwith other members of the RPF and noticed 4 or 5 persons coming out from the yard with gunny bags. They were chased and challenged. The miscreants dropped the gunny bags and fled away. They were chased and challenged. The miscreants dropped the gunny bags and fled away. Members of the RPF proceeded further and noticed a truck on which opposite par- ty Dhaneshwar Shah was sitting and 7 or 8 persons were engaged in loading the gunny bags on the truck. On seeing the members of the RPF, the truck with the opposite party fled away. The members of the Force could seize some gunny bags which contained railway properties. On the said allegation, case u/s 8 of the Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act,.1966 was registered and investiga- tion commenced. On 11.3.1974 the opposite party Dhaneshwar Sah filed a criminal complaint against Parmjit Singh Bedi alleging that at the time of occurrence he was in Monghyr Jail, that on 5.3.74 Parmjit Singh came to his place and enter into his godown and began to make a search but could not find any railway property. It was further alleged that Parmijt Singh Bedi caught hold of Dhaneshwar Sah; hur- led abuses and giving him slaps took him to Police Station. Jamalpur and put him in the police lock up. On the above complaint, the Sub Divisional Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner Parmjit Singh Bedi for the offences u/s 323,341,342 & 500 IPC. The Patna High Court held that a reading of the criminal complaint filed by Dhaneshwar Sah gave an unmistakable impression that parmjit Singh had no intention to assault or defame the opposite party and that some force might have been used by Parmjit Singh when the opposite party resisted in being taken to the police station and that the story of ``Gali-Galoj was just an embellishment or too vague to be of any significance. It was further held that Dhaneshwar Shah did neither file any injury report nor give the details of the abuses that were hurled on him. Moreover, if abuses were there, they were so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. Apparently, such are not the case on hand. Here the FIR was promptly lodged by Jagdish and the MLR was also filed. Besides this, two alleged eye witnesses in their police statements supported Jagdishs case. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that Parmjits case does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Apparently, such are not the case on hand. Here the FIR was promptly lodged by Jagdish and the MLR was also filed. Besides this, two alleged eye witnesses in their police statements supported Jagdishs case. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that Parmjits case does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. (13) The learned Sessions Judge, thus,has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate (Railways) and specifically making it clear that if after recording the evidence the learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act apply in this case then he shall be free to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. (14) Hence, refracted from any angle, this revision petition is devoid of any force and substance and the same is hereby dismissed. The record of the lower court be sent back immediately. _