PREMSAGAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dt. 10-11-1976 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Misc. Crl. App. 6 of 1976 modifying the order dt.16-1-1976 passed by the Judical Magistrate First Class, Bhalki, in CC.29|3 of 1976, directing this petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.5,000 with one surety in the like sum and binding him for good behaviour for a period of five years.

(2.) The records show that on 16-1-1976 the police produced the petitioner before the said Magistrate and placed information to the effect that the petitioner had been convicted in CC.28/3 of 1974 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basavakalyan, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week for the offence under S.3 read with S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and further on, that on 3-9-1974 he was found exporting rice from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra via Karnataka and when CW.2 the Sub-Inspector of Police chased him, he (CW.2) was assaulted and a case in Crime No.22 of 1974 under Secs.279, 332 and 353 of the IPC read with C1.3 of the Rice (Southern Zone Movement Control) Order, 1957, had been registered and that the said facts disclosed that the petitioner was in the habit of committing the offences under the Essential Commodities Act, and hence action under Sec.110(f) (i) (e) CrlPC was to be taken. The Magistrate immediately framed the substance of the accusation and recorded the plea of the petitioner as follows :

(3.) Plea of the Accused : " Sahi hai" Thereafter the Magistrate passed his order as narrated above. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the District & Sessions Judge, Bidar. It was argued before the Sessions Judge that the Magistrate had no power to bind over the accussed for a period of five years when the law empowered him to bind over such persons for a period of three years only and that the provisions of S.110 and 111 Cr.P.C. had not been complied with. The learned Sessions Judge concluded that the provisions of Sec.111CrlPC had not been complied with but that was not a serious irregularity so as to make him interfere in the order. In regard to the other aspect namely the question of binding over the petitioner for a period of five years, the learned Sessions Judge modified the same to a period of three years.