MKHIVARAJ Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-accused against the judgment of the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Kolar Gold Fields, in C. C. No. 1032/55, convicting him of an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days.

(2.) The case for the prosecution was that the accused was on 11-9-54 found with a silver sport cup valued at Rs. 20 knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and that he thereby committed an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. The accused is said to have pleaded guilty which resulted in the conviction and sentence referred to above. It is against that decision that this revision petition is filed.

(3.) It appears to me that the proceedings in the lower Court are attended with, serious irregularities. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure laid down in Section 262, Cr.P.C. has not been followed and that it has resulted in prejudice to the accused. There seems to be considerable force in this contention. Section 262 Cr.P.C. inter alia lays down that in trials under Chap. XXII the procedure prescribed for summons cases shall be followed in summons cases and that prescribed for warrant cases shall be followed for warrant cases except as thereinafter .mentioned. The offence for which the petitioner has been convicted is one under Section 411, I.P.C. which is triable as a warrant case. The contention strenously put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the procedure laid down in respect of warrant cases has not been followed in the present case, that no witnesses were examined for the prosecution, that the learned Magistrate recorded the plea of the accused immediately he appeared before Court as in a summons case and that he proceeded to convict the petitioner on the strength of the said plea. These allegations are borne out by the copy of the judgment granted to the petitioner by the lower Court. The judgment in the case was pronounced on 9-3-55, and two days later, viz., on 11-3-55 the copy of judgment produced by the petitioner has been granted to him. In this copy, no reference is made to the examination of any witness and it looks as if the plea of guilty was recorded as soon as the petitioner appeared before Court. It is also clear therefrom that the learned Magistrate has adopted a procedure which is prescribed for summons cases to a case which ought to have been tried as a warrant case. It is rather significant to note that the original judgment written by the Magistrate himself docs not tally with the cerified copy of the judgment granted to the petitioner. No doubt, in the original judgment it looks as though the procedure prescribed for warrant cases has been adopted. As to how and why this discrepancy between the original judgment and the copy thereof has arisen is difficult to understand. Anyway, this much is clear that the copy of the judgment granted to the petitioner fully supports the contentions put forward by him. I am of opinion that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is illegal and that it vitiates the entire trial.