( 1 ) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Banaras, recommending that the conviction of the applicant under Section 112, Railways Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act)be altered to a conviction under Section 113 of the Act.

( 2 ) PROCEEDINGS, for the prosecution of the applicant, were initiated by the presentation of a written complaint in the Court of the Special Railway Magistrate of Banaras. A printed form was used for the complaint. The complainant mentioned Sections 112 and 113 of the Act in the space meant for the insertion of "section or sections of Act under which complaint is lodged", and in the space meant for the insertion of "description of offence", he described the offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant in the following words; "travelled without ticket, refused to pay the railway dues. " This is the whole of the allegation made by the complainant against the applicant on which he desired the applicant to be convicted under Section 112 and 113 of the act.

( 3 ) IT is surprising that this complaint was entertained at all, and that it was not immediately rejected on the ground that it did not disclose any offence to have been committed by the applicant. It is all the more surprising that it was entertained by a Special Railway Magistrate, who is expected to be familiar with the Railways Act at least, if not with any other statute relating to criminal law. As observed by the learned Special Magistrate himself, in his explanation, Section 113 of the Act, only provides a procedure for the recovery of railway dues and does not define any offence, The procedure provided by Section 113 of the Act is set in motion by an application and not by a complaint. It is evident, therefore, that the complaint against the applicant under Section 113 of the Act was entirely misconceived and that that section should not have been mentioned in the complaint at all.

( 4 ) SECTION 112 of the Act does not penalise mere ticketless travelling. What it penalises is ticketless travelling with a particular intent, namely, an intent to defraud a Railway administration. This intent to defraud a Railway Administration is an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 112 of the Act. No such intent was alleged in the complaint filed against the applicant. Thus, the complaint did not disclose that he had committed an offence under section 112 of the Act, It should, therefore, have been rejected immediately on its presentation for the reason that it did not disclose any ground, for prosecuting the applicant.

( 5 ) NEVERTHELESS, this complaint was entertained and the applicant was summarily tried. No evidence was produced at the trial. The applicant is stated to have pleaded guilty. He has been convicted of an offence under Section 112 of the Act on his own plea.

( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge of Banaras, after a very careful examination of the record, did not feel satisfied that the applicant had admitted at the trial that he had travelled without ticket, with intent to defraud the Railway Administration. I may say at once that I also do not feel satisfied upon the point.

( 7 ) IT is not known what was actually stated by the applicant; nor is it known what question was put to the applicant in answer to which the applicant is said to have pleaded guilty. There is no record of the actual words used by the applicant. The judgment does not state anything beyond, "he pleads guilty", and the printed form precribed under Section 263, Criminal P. C. , records only these two words, "pleads guilty. " "pleads guilty", or "he pleads guilty" is certainly not a record of any statement made by the applicant. It is only a record of what, in the opinion of the learned Magistrate, the statement amounted to. It is the record of an inference only which may or may not be well-founded.

( 8 ) ACCORDING to the procedure prescribed by Sections 212 and 243, Criminal P. C. , which apply to Summary Trials also by reason of th