STATE OF KERALA Vs. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under S. 438 (1)of the Criminal Procedure Code made by the District Magistrate on a revision petition filed by the Collector to set aside the order passed by the magistrate, Kattakada under S. 61-A (1) of the Prohibition Act that an amount of rs. 250/- out of the fine of Rs. 500/- collected will be given to the sub-Inspector of Police, Kattakada.

(2.) IN C. C. No. 1146 of 1962 on the file of the sub-Magistrate, Kattakada, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused on his plea of guilty to the charge under S. 8 (1) (j) and S. 9 of the Prohibition Act and S. 51 of the Police Act, the allegation being that on 26-10-1952 at 11 A. M. the Sub-INspector of Police found the accused in an intoxicated condition and behaving in a disorderly manner on the public road at paruthiapally within the prohibition area of the Nedumangad Taluk. The accused admitted the offence and had no cause to show against his conviction. Hence he was convicted under S. 8 (1) (j) of Act XIII of 1950 and s. 51 of the Police Act and sentenced to the minimum sentence of Rs. 500/- fine provided for the first offence under S. 8 (1) (j) of the Prohibition Act. The learned Magistrate without giving any reason ordered under S. 61-A that Rs. 250/- out of the fine if collected will be given to the Sub-INspector of police, Kattakada who has according to the learned Magistrate "detected" the offence. The Trivandrum District Collector sought to get that order set aside by a revision petition which has occasioned this reference.

(3.) THE order for payment of the amount forthwith to the officer is also passed without jurisdiction. S. 61-A. only enables the magistrate who tries the case to make a direction that any portion not exceeding one-half of the fine which may be levied be paid to the police and prohibition officers who may have assisted in the detection of the offence and he is bound to send the amount to be paid to the District Collector who is the authority to distribute it among such of the officers aforesaid as may be chosen by him and in such proportion as he thinks fit. THE jurisdiction to choose the recipient and fix the proportion in which the money is to be distributed rests with the District Collector and not the Magistrate who tries the case and the Sub-Magistrate was actually usurping that function and clutching at jurisdiction as it were when he straightaway ordered the payment of the amount to the Sub-Inspector.