EMPEROR Vs. SARDAR MOHAMMAD AURANGZEBKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the accused by a Bench of Honorary Presidency Magistrates on a charge preferred against him under Section 109(1) and 120(c) of the Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890). The question raised is one of some importance to railway companies, and to passengers who use the railways, because it involves the right of a railway company to reserve seats for passengers, and to see that the reservation is enforced against persons who disregard it.

(2.) WHAT happened in this case was that the accused reserved a berth in a second class compartment on the Frontier Mail, leaving the Bombay Central Station on June 17, 1940, and he was issued a reservation) ticket. We have not got in evidence the actual ticket issued to him, but we have got a sample ticket issued for a different date, and an official of the railway company admitted in the witness-box that that sample was similar in character to the ticket actually issued to the accused. Some evidence was given by the reservation clerk that the accused was told that he could' only have an upper berth; on the other hand, the accused said that he was told that he could have a lower berth. To my mind, that evidence is irrelevant. The contract between the accused and the railway company for the reservation of a berth was reduced to writing in the form of the reservation ticket, and under that ticket the accused was entitled to one second class berth in the particular train, its position not being specified. The railway company carried out their part of the contract by allotting to the accused an upper berth in a second class carriage, as they were entitled to do. The accused, however, was not willing to occupy an upper berth, and clearly he was not bound to occupy the berth reserved for him, if any other berth was available. He proceeded to occupy a lower berth in the same compartment. Now, the railway company had entered into contracts for the reservation of the other three berths in this compartment, and they had carried out their part of the contracts with two other passengers by allotting to them the lower berths, and those passengers claimed their lower berths, whilst the accused and a friend, who was with him and who had also been allotted an upper berth, insisted on taking the lower berths and refused to vacate those berths when requested to do so by the railway officials. The result was that one of the other passengers reluctantly occupied an upper berth, and the other passenger, who refused to do so, was accommodated in some other compartment in the first class.

(3.) I think the accused was rightly acquitted, and the appeal must be dismissed.