CHANDAI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad recommending that the conviction of one Chandai under Section 122 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, be set aside.

(2.) Chandai used to work as a licensed porter at the Allahabad railway. station. In accordance with an agreement between Mr. Sealey and the Railway administration the former used to supply a sufficient number of coolies for carrying passengers luggage and doing other railway work. Every cooly engaged by Mr. Sealey had to wear a numbered badge to show that he was licensed to work at the railway station and it was understood that none but licensed coolies would be permitted to work as porters. On the 29 of September 1931, Chandai absented himself from duty without permission and remained absent for a month. Mr. Sealey dismissed him for having absented himself without obtaining any leave and refused to enrol him on his return. On the 5 or 6 of December 1931, Mr. Reiley, a railway official, saw Chandai at the station platform carrying a passenger's luggage without wearing any badge and therefore handed him over to a policemen charging him with an offence under Section 122 of the Indian Railways Act. His defence was that he had entered the platform only for the purpose of obtaining the return of his badge, which Mr. Sealey had hitherto refused to return.

(3.) The trial Court found that the accused had entered the platform for the purpose of working as a porter for hire without a license and as the railway authority did not permit him to do this work, without a license, he had entered the platform "unlawfully" within the meaning of Section 122 of the Indian Railways Act. The learned Sessions Judge held that the expression "unlawful entry" as used in Section 122 can refer only to an entry for the purnose of committing some offence or in contravention of some definite provision of law and as none of those elements were present in this case, the accused had been wrongly convicted.