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

1960 Supreme(All) 50

M.C.DESAI
Vishwanath Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
M. Asif Ansari, for Applicant; Govt. Advocate, for Respondent.

ORDER :- The main question that is raised in this reference by the applicant Vishwanath Pande, who is an assistant station master, is whether the word "person" used in the beginning of S. 120 of the Railways Act includes a railway servant. The Magistrate answered the question in the affirmative and convicted the applicant under S. 120, but the Additional Sessions Judge considering that it should have been answered in the negative has referred the case to this Court for quashing the applicants conviction.

2. Section 120 reads as follows :

"120. If a person in any railway carriage or upon any part of a railway -

(a) is in a state of intoxication, or

(b) commits any nuisance or act of indecency, or uses obscene or abusive language, or

(c) wilfully and without lawful excuse interferes with the comfort of any passenger or extinguishes any lamp,he shall be punished with fine which may extend to fifty rupees, in addition to the forfeiture of any fare which he may have paid and of any pass or ticket which he may have obtained or purchased, and may be removed from the railway by any railway servant."

It may be conceded that the word "person" used in the beginning of the section is general enoug












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