IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Walsh, J.
Mullapudi Rangayya
Versus
Emperor
Decided On : 30.08.1934
Trespass - Railway Premises - Lawful Entry
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contended that lawful entry into one part of the railway premises entitled a person to enter any part, leading to trespass on the line.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no authority supporting the petitioner's contention and dismissed the petition.
Issues: Interpretation of lawful entry into railway premises and its implications on trespass
Ratio Decidendi: Lawful entry into one part of the railway does not make entry into every part lawful, and does not entitle a person to trespass on the line.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
Walsh, J.
1. I have been shown no authority for the petitioners contention that a lawful entry into one part of the railway as in this case of a passanger with a ticket into the platform, entitles a person to enter on any part of the railway premises and to trespass on the line, as in this case. None of the cases quoted Emperor v. Lodai 1927 All. 646, Bashir Ahmad v. Emperor 1918 Nag. 49 or Durrel, L.S. v. Kumud Kaula 1919 Cal. 718 supported this contention. If it were correct, all ticket-holders and passengers can trespass on the line and presumably third class ticket holders can enter first class compartments or first class waiting rooms, while all ticket-holders can get into the single boxes, engine drivers cabin and guard vans. The absurdity of these results shows that lawful entry into one part of the railway does not make entry into every part of a railway lawful. The petition is dismissed.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.