STATE OF MYSORE Vs. BHEEMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the State has contended that the sentence passed by the Munsiff Magistrate, Chitapur on the respondent on 17-3-1970 in C.C. No.165/3/70, is not according to law.

(2.) The few facts necessary for a decision in this case are as follows: A charge-sheet was filed against the respondent alleging that at about 11 A.M. on 24-12-1969, the respondent was found in possession of two bottles each containing 650 M.L. of illicitly distilled liquor and as such he had commtted an offence punishable under S.34 of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the respondent being produced before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate put the substance of the accusation to the respondent as follows: "It is alleged by the prosecution that you were found in possession of I. D. liquor of two bottles and same was seized under a panchanama. Show cause why you should not be convicted u/s.34 Excise Act." The respondent stated that he was not at all guilty of the offence alleged against him.

(3.) The records received from the lower Court go to show that later, on, on the very same day a typed application (Unstamped) appears to have been filed under the LTM. of accused Bheemla (i.e., the respondent. The LTM. is not at all endorsed to show as to who identified the same. That application reads as follows: May it please your honour.