Skip to content


In Re: Govindaswamy Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1911)21MLJ748
AppellantIn Re: Govindaswamy Naidu
Excerpt:
- .....from trichinopoly to podanur without a ticket and that on arrival at podanur he presented a forged railway pass made out in the name of the 'servant of mr. brown, assistant auditor' - a description which did not apply and never had applied to him. the appellant in his appeal petition admits all this, and merely pleads that he was induced by deceitful friends to buy the pass for a less sum than the fare would have amounted to.2. in our opinion the conviction under section 419, i.p.c., must be changed to one of attempt only. there is no evidence to prove that the appellant at any time showed the pass to a ticket examiner or other railway official before the completion of his journey, and his presentation of it, when challenged at podanur, can only be regarded as a dishonest attempt to.....
Judgment:

1. The appellant has been convicted of cheating by personation (Section 419, I.P.C.) and of an offence under Section 112(a) of the Railways Act. It is not denied that he travelled by the South Indian Railway from Trichinopoly to Podanur without a ticket and that on arrival at Podanur he presented a forged Railway Pass made out in the name of the 'Servant of Mr. Brown, Assistant Auditor' - a description which did not apply and never had applied to him. The appellant in his appeal petition admits all this, and merely pleads that he was induced by deceitful friends to buy the Pass for a less sum than the fare would have amounted to.

2. In our opinion the conviction under Section 419, I.P.C., must be changed to one of attempt only. There is no evidence to prove that the appellant at any time showed the pass to a Ticket Examiner or other Railway official before the completion of his journey, and his presentation of it, when challenged at Podanur, can only be regarded as a dishonest attempt to induce the Railway Company's servants to omit to collect the fare from him or prosecute him in default. The attempt was not successful. He has been prosecuted and the fare has been ordered to be recovered by the Railway Company out of the fine imposed.

3. We therefore alter the conviction from one under Section 419, I.P.C., to one under Sections 419 and 511, I.P.C., and reduce the sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment.

4. The conviction and sentence under Section 112 of the Railway Act are confirmed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //