Emperor Vs. Gur Prasad Gir - Court Judgment
|Respondent||Gur Prasad Gir|
act no. ix of 1850 (indian railways act), section 125 - cattle left in charge of keeper allowed to stray on a railway line--liability of owner. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in.....chamier, j.1. gur prasad gir was convicted under section 125 of the railways act. on the evidence, there seems no doubt, that he had placed his co-accused musai in charge of his cattle and that it was due to the negligence of musai that the cattle strayed on the railway. following the decision of the madras court, reported in queen-emperor v. andi (1894) i.l.r. 18 mad. 228. i hold that gur prasad gir should not have been convicted. i set aside his conviction and direct that the fine, if paid by him, be refunded.
1. Gur Prasad Gir was convicted under Section 125 of the Railways Act. On the evidence, there seems no doubt, that he had placed his co-accused Musai in charge of his cattle and that it was due to the negligence of Musai that the cattle strayed on the railway. Following the decision of the Madras Court, reported in Queen-Emperor v. Andi (1894) I.L.R. 18 Mad. 228. I hold that Gur Prasad Gir should not have been convicted. I set aside his conviction and direct that the fine, if paid by him, be refunded.