GANGAPPA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Identical questions of law arise for consideration in this batch of 4 criminal revision petitions.

(2.) The accused in these cases were convicted for offences under Section 4(1)(g)(i) of the Mysore Prohibition Act (which shall be hereinafter called "the Act") and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each. They pleaded guilty in the trial Court and were convicted on their plea,

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they were not tried according to law, and as such their conviction is unsustainable. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Court had no jurisdiction to follow the procedure laid down in Section 251(A) of the Cr. P. C. and that the accused should have been tried under Section 252 of the Cr. P. C. His grievance is that his clients were deprived of the benefit of Section 252 Cr. P. C. and thereby they were prejudiced.