AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 180 wordsPakenham Walsh, J.—I have been shown no authority for the petitioner''s contention that a lawful entry on to one part of the railway, as in
this case of a passenger with a ticket on to 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 Lodai or Lodi Vs. Emperor, , Bashir Ahmad v. Emperor 48 Ind. Cas. 898 : 48 Ind. Cas. 896 and Kumud Kanta
Chakrabarty v. Emperor 47 Ind. Cas. 74 : 22 CWN 575 : 19 Cri. LJ 878 supports this contention.
If it were correct all ticket-holders and passengers can trespass on the line and presumably third class ticket-holder can enter 1st class
compartment or 1st class waiting room while all ticket-holders can get into the signal boxes, engine driver''s 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.