BABUSING JODHASING JAMADAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order passed on 26-9-67 by Mr. B. N. Doctor City Magistrate 10 Court Ahmedabad in Summary Case No. 50 of 1965 whereby the appellant accused came to be convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for ten days for an offence under sec. 332 read with sec. 24 of the Indian Penal Code. tIe is further convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten days for an offence under sec. 323 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of the other offences for which he came to be charged he has been acquitted.

(2.) One Shri Kantilal Bapalal Mody an advocate and a receiver appointed by the City Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 806 of 1968 filed a complaint Ex. 1 against the accused-appellant in respect of offences punishable under secs. 323 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code of the City Magistrate 10 Court Ahmedabad. The process was directed to be issued against the accused in respect of offences under secs. 504 and 506 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. Since the offences were triable under a summary procedure as contemplated in sec. 260(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code the learned Magistrate followed the procedure contemplated in Chapter XXII of the Code. After recording the substance of evidence of some of the witnesses the learned Magistrate framed a charge Ex 5 against the accused in respect of his having committed offences punishable under secs. 332 323 and 504 of the Indian penal Code. In the alternative he was charged for the offences under secs. 332 and 323 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The same procedure was continued even thereafter and after considering the effect of the evidence adduced in the case found the accused guilty and sentenced him as stated above. Feeling dissatisfied with that order the accused has come in appeal

(3.) Mr. Trivedi the learned advocate for the appellant-accused contended that the summary procedure followed by the learned Magistrate in respect of the offences with which he came to be charged was not legal and that the proceedings therefore are liable to be quashed. Sec. 260 provides as follows :-