ASHRAFI LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Mr. Ashrafi Lal Pleader of Agra in respect of his conviction by a Magistrate of an offence under's J08 of the Railways Act IX of 1890. The applicant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10. He applied in revision to the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad, but his application was rejected on the ground that no question of law was involved, the Magistrate's decision that the applicant had pulled the communication chord in a Railway carriage without reasonable and sufficient cause being merely a finding of fact.

(2.) The facts of the case have to be gathered from the statement of the applicant. This statement was not challenged by any cross-examination or rebutted by any evidence. On the face of it the statement appears to be a straightforward and honest exposition of the facts that occurred. They were briefly as follows: The applicant arrived with a companion at Marehra Railway Station between 9 and 10 P.M. in the evening. The station is a small one on the line between Kasganj and Agra. The train was due to arrive at 2 A.M. It was an hour late. No coolies were available. It appears that on hearing the train was late, they went off to bed. The applicant and his companion applied to the Station Master for assistance to take their baggage, and he lent them a khalasi to serve as a collie. The position of the second class compartment on the train was apparently not uniform. On this night it arrived at one end of the train and drew up beyond the platform. The train stopped for a very brief time much less than the scheduled time allowed for the stop. The khalasi needed to journey twice from the place where the baggage was deposited in order to bring all the baggage of the applicant. The train moved off before he had. brought the bedding of the applicant, and it attained too great a speed for him to reach the compartment with his second load. This bundle of bedding contained a sum of no less than Rs. 800. The applicant as soon as he had looked round the carriage and found his bedding missing, pulled the communication chord. Apparently the train had gone about 500 yards.

(3.) The Magistrate who convicted found that the bundle was left behind at the station owing to the improper action of the Railway servants in not allowing sufficient time to the applicant for boarding the train with his baggage. He found also that, if the applicant had not stopped the train, he would have stood a great risk of not recovering his Rs. 800. He considered, however, that the applicant had not reasonable and sufficient cause for pulling the communication chord for the following reason and for the following reason only. The applicant must have known that that railway line had an evil reputation for the occurrence of thefts on the line, and that the stoppage of the train between stations would cause a risk to the other passengers.