BABULAL CHHAGANLAL BAROT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision arises out of an order passed on 30th June 1965 by Mr. S. C. Bhatt Judicial Magistrate First Class Vijapur in Summary Case No. 414 of 1365 whereby the accused-applicant came to be convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/or In default to suffer simple Imprisonment for three days for an offence under sec. 179 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts of the case are quite simple. One application Ex. 7 purported to have been signed by four persons including Babulal Chhaganlal the accused-applicant was received by the Hon'ble Home Minister of the State of Gujarat Ahmedabad and the copies thereof were sent to the D.S.P. District Mehsana as also to the Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture State of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. That application was then forwarded by the Home and Civil Supplies Department to the D.S.P. Mehsana who in turn by letter dated 4-5-65 sent it on to the P.S.I. Vijapur asking him to return that original application together with his report within 10 days The P.S.I. Shri Mehta then gave that application to the Police Head Constable Sardarsingh for making a report in respect of that application within 7 days. On receiving the same on 9-5-65 he called the applicant accused at the police station with a view to inquire from him about that application. On being asked by him as to whether he had made that application Ex. 7 the applicant-accused replied that he had nothing to say about the application. That led the P.S.I. Vijapur to lodge the complaint Ex. 1 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vijapur on 12-5-65 under sec. 179 of the Indian Penal Code inasmuch as he refused to give any answer when he was asked about the application Ex. 7 shown to him on 9-5-65.

(3.) The complaint was explained to the accused by the learned Magistrate and to that he pleaded not guilty. In his statement that came to be recorded he said that it was true that he was called by the Jamadar on 9-5-65 for making some inquiry in respect of an application Ex. 7 but with regard to the question as to whether he did not give any reply when he was asked as to whether he had signed the application Ex. 7 he stated that that part of the evidence was not true.