MAHANT KAUSBALYA DAS Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by certificate granted under Art. 134(1)(C) of the Constitution from a judgment of the Madras High Court dated April 29, 1963 in Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1963 affirming the conviction of the appellant - Sri Mahant Kaushalya Das under S. 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act and the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 or in default rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The appellant is the hereditary Mahant of Sri Bairaghi Matam - a Hindu Religious and Charitable Institution of a monastic nature. The appellant has been residing in the Matam premises, Elephant Gate, Madras which is a public place of worship. On March 22, 1963 at about 10 a.m. the appellant was arrested by the police and immediately produced before the VIII Presidency Magistrate on the same day on a charge under S. 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act on the allegation that he was in possession of 3,960 grams of ganja concealed in a wooden box in the Matam premises without any permit. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and upon that plea he was convicted by the Magistrate to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 50, in default to rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1963 to the High Court alleging that his eye sight was very bad and defective, that he was an illiterate person, not acquainted with English or Tamil or with any other South Indian language and that he only knew Hindi as it was spoken in Uttar Pradesh. He also complained that he had no time to consult either his lawyer or his disciples, that the proceedings were rushed through with undue haste, that he did not really plead guilty to the charge and that he never understood the implications of the offence or the proceedings before the Magistrate. The appellant filed an affidavit in support of the appeal before the High Court in regard to these allegations, Kailasam, J. called for a report from the VIII Presidency Magistate with regard to the allegations made in the affidavit of the appellant. On April 23, 1963 the Magistrate submitted a report as follows:

(3.) Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant put forward the argument that the Magistrate did not comply with the mandatory provisions of S. 243, Criminal Procedure Code that the appellant has been deprived of the substance of a fair trial, and that the conviction of the appellant is legally invalid. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that the necessary ingredients of the offence of possession of the contraband article under S. 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act have not been established as a matter of law.