A SNAGAPPA SETTY Vs. HOLALKERE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the judgment of the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Davangore in C. C. No. 960 of 54 convicting the petitioner-accused of an offence Under Section 86 (2), Town Municipalities Act and sentencing each of them to pay fine of Rs. 20/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week each.

(2.) The case for the prosecution was that on the night of 15-4-1954 the petitioners-accused, with intent to defraud the Town Municipality had brought and introduced into the municipal limits certain goods liable for octroi duty, without paying the required duty, and that they thereby committed offences Under Section 86 (2) and Section 87, Town Municipalities Act. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused as stated above. As against that conviction and sentence, this revision petition is filed.

(3.) The main point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction could be sustained. Various grounds have been urged in the petition and one of the important grounds strenuously argued before me is that the judgment of the lower Court is opposed to law, that though the case has been tried summarily the learned Magistrate has dictated the judgment to the stenographer and has thereby failed to comply with the provisions of Section 265 (1), Cr.PC which provides the manner in which a judgment in a summary trial has to be written, that according to that provision the judgment in this case should have been written by the learned Magistrate in his own hand-writing, that the judgment is therefore illegal and that the conviction and sentence have to be set aside. It appears to me that there is considerable force in this contention.