S A HAMID Vs. SUDHIR MOHAN GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the District Traffic Superintendent on the Eastern Bengal Railway at Dacca. He has been convicted under Section 342, I. P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15.

(2.) The finding of fact on which his conviction is based is that the complainant Sudhir Mohan Ghose and a companion of his. two school boys, were caught by the petitioner near the overbridge on the platform of the Mymensingh Railway Station and then taken to the exit gate and made over to ticket collector there. What followed after this is of no use so far as the questions before me are concerned. What preceded the event is relevant from the point of view of both the parties and the finding on that question, therefore, has also to be examined. The defence case was that the petitioner noticed the complainant amongst 5 or 6 persons proceeding towards the exit gate, and when he challenged the complainant he understood the latter to say in reply that he had no ticket, and as a train had just been in he asked the ticket collector to treat the complainant as one who had travelled without a ticket; that he noticed another boy with a bicycle and told the ticket collector to check his ticket also. The complainant's case was that the petitioner met him and his companion near the overbridge, having come up from behind, that the petitioner asked them for their tickets, and notwithstanding that the complainant replied that they would be travelling by the train which had just come in and were going to purchase their tickets the petitioner seized their hands and dragged them to the ticket collector and asked him to realize the fare from the starting terminus Naraingunj up to Mymensingh.

(3.) Of these rival versions it is the complainant's story substantially which the learned Magistrate was prepared to accept. He accepted the evidence to the effect that the complainant and his companion entered the platform from the western extremity and entry into the platform from that side was prohibited. He, however, dealt with the case on either footing and held that even on the assumption that they came by the train and the petitioner arrested them after questioning the complainant whether they had tickets or not and after hearing what the complainant told him, the legal consequence was the same.