Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—These 21 Misc. Petitions have been preferred against the orders dated 22.11.05 and 6.12.2005 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Railway, Ajmer in different criminal cases. 2. Since all these petitions arise from the order dated 22.l1.2005 and 6.12.2005 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Railways Ajmer, they are being disposed by this common order. 3. These matters came up on the applications for impleadment of party respondents and for extending six weeks further time to remove the defects. This Court granted two weeks' time vide order dt.3.8.11 which reads as under: "two weeks' time is granted to remove the defects, failing which the criminal misc. petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court". 4. But the defects were not removed as per the direction of the Court. This Court further granted four weeks' time to remove the defects vide order dated 12.8.2011 which reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has received instructions from Union of India, Railway Department now. As such, he also submitted that number of defects pointed out by the office is fairly large. Therefore, he will require substantial time for removing the defects. As such, he prays that two weeks' time granted by this Court on 3.8.2011 may be extended so that necessary steps may be taken for removing all the defects. "Looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case, time granted by this Court on 3.8.2011 is extended and now the petitioner is given four weeks' time to remove the defects, failing which the misc. petition shall stand automatically dismissed without any reference to the Court". 5. Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Advocate who is earlier appearing as advocate on behalf of the petitioner union of India filed vakalatnama of Shri Kuldeep Chaturvedi and also filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 29.8.2011. Paras 3,4, and 5 of the application reads as under : "3. That the defect No.l in so far as it relates to cognizance being taken against the private party is concerned, it is made clear that the then Chief commercial Manager Shri Kuldeep Chaturvedi, against whom cognizance was taken by the learned trial court, was discharging his duties in the capacity of an officer of Union of India. That the defect No.l in so far as it relates to cognizance being taken against the private party is concerned, it is made clear that the then Chief commercial Manager Shri Kuldeep Chaturvedi, against whom cognizance was taken by the learned trial court, was discharging his duties in the capacity of an officer of Union of India. However, in the cause title the name of Union of India through Chief Commercial Manager Western Railway, Head Quarter Office, Church Gate, Mumbai is now replaced by the following title of the petitioner : "Kuldeep Chaturvedi, son of Shri Girish Chandra Chaturvedi aged about 59 years, 6 months, presently working as General Manager, South Western Raiwlay, Hubli, Karnataka earlier at the time of filing of petition working as Chief Commercial Manager, Western Railway, Head Quarter Office Church Gate, Mumbai. 4. That the State of Rajasthan through P.P. Is also impleaded as party respondent No.1 and the earlier two respondents are impleaded as respondent No.2 and 3.which are being filed 5. That by filing the present petition in the name of then Chief Commercial Manager, presently the General Manager SWE, the defect No.1 as pointed by the Registry, would be cured and by impleading State of Rajasthan through P.P., defect No.4 would be cured. It is also submitted that the defect No.2 and 6 would be cured by filing the power of the petitioner with duly affixed seal of the present designation, which the petitioner holds. The certified copies of the orders dt. 22.11.2005 and 6.12.2005, which are defect No.3 and 5 on account of being filed will also cure the defect. It is also submitted that on account of adding the petitioner's name and impleading of State of Rajasthan as party to the petition, the amended cause title is also to be filed along with the present application, which may kindly be also taken on record. 6. I have gone through the application filed by Shri Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Shri Kuldeep Chaturvedi in his official capacity as General Manager of South western Railway, Hubli not in his personal capacity,, thus the defect pointed out by the office is not cured. The application being devoid of merit stands rejected. The matter is pending since 2006 and the defects still have not been removed, hence, these matters are liable to be dismissed on this count only. The application being devoid of merit stands rejected. The matter is pending since 2006 and the defects still have not been removed, hence, these matters are liable to be dismissed on this count only. But in the interest of justice, looking to the gravity of the case, the matter is decided on its merits. 7. Brief facts giving rise to these misc. petitions are that a complaint was filed by one Raj Kumar, Sub-inspector, Railway Protection Force, Ajmer stat-ing therein that on 29.8.2005 the pantry car in train no. 9007 was checked by the Railway Department wherein it was found that the Manager of Pantry car was not having important documents viz. licence, pfa certificate etc. and upon enquiry the employees of the M/s. Good Food & Company misbehaved with the complainant and create hindrance in the smoothful working of the offi-cials of the Railways which find support from the statements of the witnesses. 8. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railways, Ajmer vide its order dated 22.11.2005 took cognizance against Kuldeep Chaturvedi, who was Chief Commercial Manager, Western Railway, Headquarter office, Churchgate, Mumbai, in his personal capacity and others and vide order dated 6.12.2005, the aforesaid court issued bailable warrant against four persons whereas Shri Kuldeep Charturvedi, who was Chief Commercial Manager, Railways, was summoned for personal appearance on 20.12.2005 failing which the court would force to issue non bailable warrant against him. Against the aforesaid orders these misc. petitions have been preferred. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was selected and appointed as Class-I Officer in Railways and presently holding the post of Chief Commercial Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai. The petitioner controls various departments and matters pertaining to commercial wing of Western Railway and thus he is holding an important post to lookafter and take care of commercial wing of the Western Railway. 10. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railway has taken cognizance against Kuldeep Chaturvedi in his personal capacity along with others without taking note of legal provisions into consideration and thus gross illegality has been committed by the AC3M with oblique motive. As per the provisions of law, no criminal case can be initiated against an official other than by way of special permission of -the Government of India. Thus, the orders dated 22.11.2005 and 6.12.2005 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railway be quashed and set aside. 11. As per the provisions of law, no criminal case can be initiated against an official other than by way of special permission of -the Government of India. Thus, the orders dated 22.11.2005 and 6.12.2005 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railway be quashed and set aside. 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders dated 22.11.2005 and 6.12.2005. 12. A perusal of the orders impugned shows that the Department has not considered the depth and intensity of the matter and taken the matter casual and a mere formality was done and thereby complaint was filed. Looking to the contents of the complaint and evidence prima facie it appeared that an agreement in between the Chief Commercial Manager and M/s. Good Food & Co. was entered into and in lieu thereof a licence to run a pantry car was issued by the Railways to the company. In that situation the certified copies of the registration certification of such company, list: of partners (owners), the name of authorized person proposed by the partners, details of the persons authorized to run pantry car, recognition of such persons from Railways, document of conditions agreed in between Railways and the company, list of goods to be sold etc. were to be attached along with the complaint so that involvement of the persons concerned in the offence could be ascertained. But the same have not been attached and the complainant Raj Kumar was not able to give satisfactory answer to this effect. 13. Shri Raj Kumar complainant got himself satisfied relying on the facts and evidence and thereupon deeming Shri Arvind as an authorized person of the company and by producing the photo copy showing that the company was issued temporary licence for running the pantry car in future. The complainant Raj. Kumar has not bothered to investigate the existence and authenticity of the document. Therefore, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion that with the connivance of Chief Commercial Officer, the partners of said company were running the pantry car in train no. 9007 without licence which was later, on tried for renewing the licence but by not making entry of renewal in the licence but a separate letter was issued. In such circumstances, the complainant filed the complainant only against the unauthorized person of the! 9007 without licence which was later, on tried for renewing the licence but by not making entry of renewal in the licence but a separate letter was issued. In such circumstances, the complainant filed the complainant only against the unauthorized person of the! company insptie of the fact that legally the Firm and its owners are liable for any offence. 14. Witness Arvind has accepted that the term of licence was to end on 5.5.2005 and when the complainant checked the pantry car on 29.8.2005 the management of pantry car was not having a licence and such offence was being committed with the connivance of Commercial Department of Railways and as such prima facie involvement of Chief Commercial Manager was found. as such giving indirect permission for selling eatable materials in the train is an criminal act. 15. Therefore, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against Shri Kuldeep Chaturvedi, Chief Commercial Manager along with four others. Against Raj Kumar Patel cognizance was taken under sections 145,144, 146 of the Railways Act. Against Hakmi Chand, Kishore, Apsar Ahmed Syed, Slim Ahmed Syed and Kuldeep Chaturvedi cognizance was taken under Section 147 Railways Act and Section 120-B IPC for allowing to run pantry car in absence of licence and PFA. 16. On 6.12.2005, Shri Ravindra Srivastava was present before the Court on behalf of Chief Commercial Manager. Mr. Srivastava has produced documents along with a letter dated 1.2.2005. The Chief Commercial Manager was available at Mumbai on that date. On 22.11.2005 the court ordered to produce original documents on the next date. However, documents were produced but they were not original. As also complete desired documents were not produced. In all 15 documents were produced which were not original and only true copies were produced. 17. Mr. Srivastava has told that checking and action is done by him relating to train no. 9007. His predecessor was Mr. S.S. Agarwal. As per the produced and desired documentz there was no agreement of the pantry from 1998 to 2000. The registration certificate, partnership deed were not available with them. It was seated that the documents regarding taking steps for renewal of licence will be produced later on. The pantry in train no. 9007 was first of all started in 1998 and the authority letter to run the pantry was issued on 9.1.98. The registration certificate, partnership deed were not available with them. It was seated that the documents regarding taking steps for renewal of licence will be produced later on. The pantry in train no. 9007 was first of all started in 1998 and the authority letter to run the pantry was issued on 9.1.98. Thereafter by way of letter the term was extended and the second letter dated 10.2.2005 and the third letter dated 5.8.2005 was issued. It was stated that the renewal is not done other than by the process of issuing letter. 18. The bailable warrant of Chief Commercial Manager returned with the report that he is out of station for official work. He was aware of his warrant. The Advocate for the Railways shown the cause of absence of Chief Commercial Manager that he was busy in checking "the station. But the court felt that this was not ! a sufficient reason for service of bailable warrant because checking of station is the routine work and this shows that the Chief Commercial Manager wanted to escape from the order of the court. Mr. Srivastava also told that in between the Chief Commercial Manager has been coming in the office. 19. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the orders impugned do not suffer from any illegality and the Railway Court did not commit any wrong in passing the orders. It is also observed that in view of the above discussion it was not necessary for the court to take permission from the government for issuing bailable warrant and taking cognizance. 20. Consequently, all the misc. petitions are hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. 21. Since the misc. petitions itself have been dismissed, stay applications also stand dismissed.