SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1934 Supreme(Mad) 279

WALSH
Mullapudi Rangayya – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


ORDER

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top