( 1 ) THE applicant Lalit, who was a porter and a, railway servant within the meaning of that term under Section 3 (7) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, at the railway station of Gorakhpur, was convicted by a learned first class Magistrate of that place under Section 120 (a) of that Act for having been upon a part of the railway, i. e. on the railway platform, in a state of intoxication and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25/-, or 10 days simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The sentence not being applicable, he went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge of gorakhpur, but the revision was rejected. He has now come up in revision to this Court.

( 2 ) HIS defence was that he had taken brandy on its being prescribed by a doctor for colic pain, and that he was not on duty at that time but had been called from leave of absence on account of that ailment. The learned Magistrate did not deal with the latter portion of his defence at all, and he did not accept the evidence of a doctor produced in defence in support of the former. The learned Sessions Judge considered only the defence which had not been dealt with by the trial court, namely, that the applicant w