Ishwar Das Varshni vs King-Emperor

Jwala Prasad, J.—The petitioner has been convicted u/s 108 of the Railways Act (Act IX of 1890) for having pulled the chain of his compartment which caused the train to stop.

The chain was intended to be used as an alarm signal. The reason for pulling the chain is said by the accused to be that the compartment had become overcrowded on account of 70 passengers having entered into it, whereas the compartment was marked for 27 passengers only. He stated that the compartment in question was an Inter Class Compartment, whereas most of the passengers had only 3rd class tickets. He further states that at Dhanbad when his compartment became overcrowded he complained to the Railway employees but received no attention, and then when the train started he felt suffocating sensation and consequently he pulled the chain in order to stop the train.

The facts are not disputed; but it is said that they do not exonerate the accused. The Magistrate evidently thought that there should have been a more serious case in order to entitle the accused to pull down the chain, such as that stated by the Guard, namely, murder or fire. Section 108 of Railways Act runs as follows:-" If a passenger, without reasonable and sufficient cause makes use of or interferes with any means provided by a railway administration for communication between passengers and railway servants in charge of a train, he shall be punished with a fine which may go up to Rs. 50."

It is evident that no bard and fast rule can be laid down as to what must constitute reasonable and sufficient cause and that it must depend upon the circumstances of each case whether there was such a cause as to justify a passenger interfering with the pulling of the chain. No doubt the case "murder" ''fire'' stated by the Guard is an extreme case. In order to prevent any danger to the health and life of passengers the Act provides in Section 63 that the limit of passengers to occupy a compartment must be fixed and must be exhibited in some conspicuous place inside or outside the compartment, and the Railway Company is enjoined to comply with the provisions of Section 63 on pain of a fine of Rs. 20 per day u/s 93 of the Act.

A corresponding obligation has been cast u/s 109 of the Act, upon passengers to obviate entering a compartment which already contains the maximum number of passengers exhibited therein or thereon. These provisions of the Act therefore confer a right upon the occupants of a compartment to resist the entry of passengers, and in the present case the compartment had already contained the maximum number allowed under the aforesaid rules.

In order to enforce this fight every passenger is entitled to invoke the aid of the Railway Officers in any station, or of the officer in charge of the train when it is in motion or is not in any station. In the present case petitioner''s requests to the persons in charge of the Dhanbad Station proved abortive and therefore he had no alternative but to draw the attention of the Guard when the train moved and when he found that he was packed to suffocation.

He was therefore justified in pulling the chain and in stopping the train for enforcing his right to have the compartment vacated so as to bring down the number of passengers therein within the maximum limit prescribed. Therefore in the circumstances of the present case the petitioner did not act without reasonable and sufficient, cause. Section 108 consequently does not apply.

The conviction of the petitioner illegal and is set aside. The fine if already realised should be refunded.

The railway people were guilty of negligence in not carrying out the provisions of the Act which are meant entirely for the safety and comfort of passengers and instead of thanking the petitioner for having drawn their attention to it they prosecuted him and thus transferred their own liability to the shoulder of the petitioner.