STATE Vs. RAGHUBIR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 1st May, 1969 I recorded an order in this case that the respondent was desirous of challenging his conviction and he was at that time desirous of concentrating his challenge to the validity of the appointment of the Public Analyst. Of course, he did not limit his challenge to that objection and also expressed his inclination to attack the legality of the trial. As the points sought to be raised ceemed to me to be of importance which were likely to take some time, I directed this case to be set down for hearing on my next visit.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent has, in the first instance, submitted that tlie accused was summoned by the trial Magistrate for 14th October, 1968 and on the same day he was convicted. The grievance ventilated by the learned counsel is that the provisions of section 204 (IB), Criminal Procedure Code, were not complied with in as much as a copy of the complaint was not attached with the process issued to him.

(3.) The next challenge is based on the submission that in the complaint the names of all the witnesses to be produced by the prosecution were not included and the only witness mentioned therein has not been produced.