M. Pandurangam Vs. the State

M. Pandurangam vs The State

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Mar 21, 1961

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/433189

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/433189
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Basi Reddy, J.
Decided On: Mar 21, 1961
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- ALL INDIA SERVICES ACT, 1951.Sections 8 & 11 & A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, Rule 5: [V.V.S. Rao, G. Yethirajulu & G. Bhavani Prasad, JJ] Refusal by Landlord to receive rent - Deposit of rent in Court - Held, A tenant has the option to take recourse to Section 8 in case of refusal ...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M. Pandurangam

Respondent

The State

Legal References

Reported In: 1962CriLJ260

Excerpt

.....to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to confer any right on tenant to plead that all defaults committed by him prior to application for eviction can never be considered wilful, if he were to deposit all arrears of rent due within fifteen days under rule 5(6) read with sub-section (1) of section 11. the object and effect of section 11 and sub-rules (1) to (5) to rule 5, the former being for protection of landlord during pendency of eviction proceedings and the later being for protection of tenant to avoid any liability for eviction on ground of wilful default. consequently, while taking recourse to section 8 by tenant is optional, once that option is exercised, compliance with sub-rules (1) to (5) of rule 5 becomes mandatory in the sense that any non-compliance with prescribed procedure will..........of human life being exposed to danger by reason of the disobedience by a railway servant of any of the general rules. actual harm need not be caused but a possibility of harm being caused would suffice.in this case, however, both the courts below have proceeded on the footing that from the mere contravention of the rules, it must be assumed that human life was endangered. that, in my opinion, is not a correct interpretation of the section because if a breach of the rules per se were punishable under section 101 of the indian railway, act, the words 'endangers the safety of any person' occurring in section 101 would be redundant and bereft of all force. while a contravention of the rules might justify departmental action, to sustain a charge under section 101 of the indian railways act, the prosecution must prove that by the disobedience of a general rule, the safety of any person had been imperilled. in this case, there is no such proof and in point of fact there was not even a remote possibility of human life being endangered by the action of the petitioner in starling the train without taking the line clear token.4. in this view, this revision case is allowed. the conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine, if paid, will be refunded to the petitioner.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Basi Reddy, J.

1. It is true as found by the courts below that the petitioner had contravened Rules 120 and 362 of the general and subsidiary rules frames under Section 47 of the Indian Railways Act. He had by over-sight or inadvertence failed to take the line clear token at Vikarabad station before proceeding to the next station, Gollaguda. He had, however, taken possession of the starting permit and the caution ticket which had been sent along with the line clear token by the Assistant Station Master of Vikarabad Railway Station through P.W. 2, Mukhaddam. It is also to be noted that the Railway guard PW 4 had checked the line clear token and later given his signal for starting the train. All this proved positively that the line from Vikarabad to Gollaguda had been blocked and as deposed to by P.W. 3, the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, once the section is blocked there is no possibility of another train coming from the opposite direction.

2. At the next station i.e., Gollaguda, the Assistant Station Master P.W. 5, not having received the out-report in respect of the train in question from Vikarabad, took the line clear from the next station Shankarapalle, blocked the line between Gollaguda and Shankarapalle and handed over the line clear token to the points-Mukhaddam for being handed over to the petitioner who was the driver of the train. While hp was on the platform, the train passed Gullaguda station which was a non-stop station, and the petitioner missed picking up the line clear token from the points-Mukhaddam and stopped the train a little further up within the station limits. At that stage, the petitioner informed the points-Mukhaddam that he had left the token at Vikarabad itself. He then started the train after a few minutes and proceeded to the next station.

3. The petitioner appears to have been anxious to take the train to Secunderabad in time as the Governor was travelling by that train. In his over-anxiety, he apparently missed taking the token at Vikarabad station. That would certainly amount to a contravention of the rule, but the petitioner has been charged and convicted for an offence under Section 101(a) of the Indian Railways Act, which runs as under:

101. If a railway servant, when on duty, endangers the safety of any person-

(a) by disobeying any general rule made, sanctioned, published and notified under this Act, or

(b) xx xx x xxhe shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Before a conviction can be had under this section, the prosecution must prove (a) that a general rule had beep disobeyed and (b) that by reason of such disobedience, the safety of any person was endangered. The meaning of 'endanger' is 'to cause danger to', and 'danger' means, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 'liability or exposure to harm, risk, peril.' So the prosecution has t0 prove that there was at least a possibility of human life being exposed to danger by reason of the disobedience by a railway servant of any of the general rules. Actual harm need not be caused but a possibility of harm being caused would suffice.

In this case, however, both the courts below have proceeded on the footing that from the mere contravention of the rules, it must be assumed that human life was endangered. That, in my opinion, is not a correct interpretation of the section because if a breach of the rules per se were punishable under Section 101 of the Indian Railway, Act, the words 'endangers the safety of any person' occurring in Section 101 would be redundant and bereft of all force. While a contravention of the rules might justify departmental action, to sustain a charge under Section 101 of the Indian Railways Act, the prosecution must prove that by the disobedience of a general rule, the safety of any person had been imperilled. In this case, there is no such proof and in point of fact there was not even a remote possibility of human life being endangered by the action of the petitioner in starling the train without taking the line clear token.

4. In this view, this revision case is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine, if paid, will be refunded to the petitioner.

Same Parties M. Pandurangam vs The State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Basi Reddy, J.

Criminal