AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 90 words
Lakshmana Rao, J.—The view of the Stationary-Magistrate that there was no proper com-plaint in this case is opposed to the decision in
Public Prosecutor v. Ratnavelu Chetty AIR (1926) Mad. 865, and on the evidence the respondent would unquestionably be guilty u/s 122, Clause
(1), Railways Act. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside and the respondent is convicted u/s 122, Clause (1), Railways Act. The offence is
technical and the respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of one rupee with simple imprisonment for one day in default.