Order : This revision application is directed against the order dated 17.01.2015 passed by the learned Railway Magistrate, Ranchi in Railway Muri P.S. Case No.03 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.06 of 2014, whereby the application of the petitioner for discharge was rejected. 2. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the co-accused, who was travelling without ticket along with this petitioner, has been discharged by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner – X, Ranchi for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in view of the provisions of Section 179(2) of the Railways Act, wherein it is stipulated that only authorized officer by the Central Government of the Railways Act, is empowered to hold enquiry and file complaint in the competent court and in the absence of any application filed by the authorized officer of the Central Government, cognizance of the offence mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 179 is barred by law. Learned counsel has relied on the decision reported in 2009 (2)East Cr. C 535 (Jhr.) and urged that a Bench of this High Court had held in the aforesaid case that when there is a Special Act, the provisions of Indian Penal Code are not applicable. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Railways Act is a Special Act and the offence of fraudulent travelling without proper pass or ticket is punishable under Section 137 of the Railways Act, 1989. Thus, cognizance for the offence under Indian Penal Code is in contravention with the aforesaid provisions of the Act and in the teeth of the ratio laid down by the High Court in the aforesaid decision. 3. Learned A.P.P has opposed and submitted that the petitioner was found travelling on a forged medical certificate showing him to be orthopedically handicapped. On the basis of the medical certificate he had illegally obtained a concessional ticket. That the said medical certificate was sent for verification to the Chief Medical Superintendent, Bangur Hospital, Kolkata. On verification, it was found that the said certificate was not issued from the said hospital/ office and the name of the doctor mentioned therein did not exist during the period when the said medical certificate was issued. 4. Heard. Perused the impugned order and the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On verification, it was found that the said certificate was not issued from the said hospital/ office and the name of the doctor mentioned therein did not exist during the period when the said medical certificate was issued. 4. Heard. Perused the impugned order and the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that in the case of State of NCT Delhi Vs. Sanjay reported in 2015 AIR SC 75, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that if there are two distinct and separate offences with different ingredients under two different enactments, a double punishment is not barred. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is applicable to the facts of the present case and the contention of the learned counsel that Section 179(2) of the Railways Act contemplates that only the authorized officer of Central Government is empowered to hold enquiry and file complaint in a competent court is without substance, as in the instant case the petitioner is not being prosecuted for the offence under Section 179(2) of the Railways Act, rather he is being prosecuted for the offence made out under Section 420, 468, 473 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no bar under Section 190 of Cr.P.C for the court to take cognizance of the said offence. It is not disputed that the petitioner was travelling on a concession ticket procured on forged and fabricated document. The trial court has rightly rejected the prayer for discharge and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. 5. In the result, the revision application stands dismissed.