GAURI SHANKER SAHAY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Gauri Shanker Sahay has been convicted by a Second Class Magistrate of Chapra under Section 108, Railways Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 for pulling the chain of the alarm signal of a third class compartment while the train was running between Chupra Kutcheri and Goldinganj Railway Stations of the Bengal and North Western Railway. His appeal having been dismissed by the Deputy Magistrate of Chapra with appellate powers, he has come up in revision.

(2.) The petitioner admitted having pulled the chain, but justified his act by alleging that there was great rush of the passengers in the compartment and he could not get a seat. He was near the door of the compartment when in consequence of the melee his thali and gold kantha fell from the train and therefore he pulled the chain. When the chain was pulled the train was stopped and was taken back to the place where the articles had fallen down. They were then picked up by the petitioner. The prosecution case was that the story of the petitioner so far as it relates to the dropping down of the thali was correct, but that the gold kantha had not fallen down and this part of his case was false. Both the Courts below have accepted the prosecution case and have disbelieved the fact that the gold kantha had fallen down. The trying Magistrate was of opinion that as the thali (plate) had dropped through his own neglect the petitioner was not justified in stopping the train, while the Court of appeal has held that the falling down of a thali worth Rs. 1-8-0 only was not a sufficient cause for pulling the chain. The view of law taken by the learned trying Magistrate is, in my opinion, wrong. Section 108, Railways Act, uses the words "reasonable and sufficient cause. "Reasonable and sufficient cause" is a question of fact to be determined according to the circumstances of each particular case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. It cannot be held that if an accident takes place through the fault or neglect of a passenger himself he is not entitled to pull the alarm signal. The learned Magistrate has referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Emperor V/s. Kaikobad Sorabji 1926 Bom 288.

(3.) The fact of that case was different. There a passenger had left behind his coat containing valuables on the platform and he stopped the train to take it back. This is quite a different thing from an accident happening in the train itself while it is running. The unreasonableness of the view taken by the learned trying Magistrate will be apparent if I give a few examples. Take for instance the case of a child falling from a train through the neglect of his mother. Can it be said that she will not be justified in taking steps to stop the train? Take a second case. A passenger boards a train just when it is moving and is standing on the foot board. There is no door at that stop to permit him to enter into the compartment. A passenger travelling in the compartment on the footboard of which this man is standing realising the danger of his falling down, pulls the chain. Can the man who pulled the chain be held liable? It is needless for me to multiply instances in which, in my opinion, though an accident has taken place through the fault of a passenger himself, he will be justified in pulling the chain. I, however, agree with the learned Magistrate in the Court of appeal that in this particular case the pulling of the chain was unreasonable if it was only to save a thali worth Rs. 1-8-0 and had the findings of the Courts below that the kantha had not fallen been based upon some evidence, I would not have thought it fit to interfere. In my opinion, the findings are based upon no evidence.