RATIA MOHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order passed on 20-1-68 by Mr. B. N. Doctor City Magistrate 10 Court Ahmedabad in Summary Case No. 1915 of 1967 whereby the appellant-accused came to be convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300.00 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and a half months for an offence of possessing 60 drams of liquor without pass or permit on 27-2-67 under sec. 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act hereinafter to be referred to as the Act.

(2.) The point made out by Mr. Divatia the learned advocate appointed for the appellant-accused was that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is illegal and void Inasmuch as the learned Magistrate has not recorded the judgment in the case and thereby contravening the mandatory provisions contained in sec. 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) It appears on a perusal of the proceedings of this case that on 18 since the surety of the accused came to be discharged at his request the accused was taken into custody by the Court. The case had then proceeded and on 20-1-68 after hearing the arguments of the learned advocates appearing in the case passed an order of conviction and sentence against him. He however did not record a judgment in the case. It appears that on 24-1-68 the copy of the judgment was asked for by the accused And instead of supplying him the certified copy of the entire judgment he came to be supplied with the extract from the judgment in the case. That copy was received by him in jail on 27 Thereupon he dispatched a memo of appeal to this Court against the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. On receiving the same the matter came up for admission before me on 5-2-68. Since there was no judgment attached to the memo of appeal and with a view to avoid any delay being caused in the matter coming up before this Court for admission (he being in jail) till a full certified copy of the judgment is made available to the accused in jail and then received by this Court I directed the record and proceeding of the case to be called for from the Court of the learned Magistrate. On the order reaching the Court it appears that he wrote out the judgment on the next day i.e. on 6-2-68 and sent up the case-papers along with the judgment on the next day. The appeal came up for admission on 9-2-68. Since it was admitted it has come up for final hearing to-day.