WAHID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Honorary Presidency Magistrate convicted accused i under 8. 75, City Police Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Bs. 25 or in default to one week's rigorous imprisonment. In addition, the Court directed him to be bound over under Section 106, Criminal P. C.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the accused argued that the order under 8, 106, Criminal P. C, was bad inasmuch as the provisions of S. 511, Criminal P. C, had not been complied with. Under Section 511, Criminal P. C. ,' particular procedure has been prescribed for proving the previous convictions, and that procedure admittedly has not been followed in this case. Dealing with Section 511, Criminal P. C, the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court in Emperor v. Sheik Abdul 43 Cal. 1128 A. I R. (3) 1916 Cal. 344 : 17 Cr. L. J. J, 185, observed as follows: With regard to the statement of the learned Magistrate as to the procedure adopted in the Police Court for the proof o ( previous convictions, we may say at once that we cannot accept the learned Magistrate's suggestion that Presidency Magistrates are absolved from the ordinary rules of evidence in taking proof of such previous convictions. Whenever it is required to prove a previous conviction against a man, whether it be for the purpose of enhancement of punishment under B. 75 Penal Code, or in proceedings under Chap. VIII, Criminal P. C, such previous convictions must be proved strictly and in accordance with law. Unless they are be proved, no Court whether it be that of a Presidency Magistrate or not can properly take such previous convictions into consideration against an accused person. These are weighty observations and must be followed strictly whenever the question arose in regard to the proof of previous convictions. But in this case a perusal of the judgment shows that the accused admitted that they had previous convictions. It is very likely that, the accused did not think of denying such convictions as, denied, they could have been easily proved.

(3.) THE learned Counsel also relied upon a judgment of Horwill J,, in Emperor v. Sheik Abdul 43 Cal. 1128 A. I R. (3) 1916 Cal. 344 arumugha Thevar v. Emperor 1942 M. w. N. crl. 179 at p. 180 : A. I. R. (30) 1943 Mad. 169 in support of his argument that in a case where the accused is sentenced under Section 75, City Police Act, he should not be also bound over under Section 106, Criminal P. C. That judgment does not support this argument. In that ease except the solitary instance of disorderliness of which he was convicted there was no other material before the Magistrate for binding over the accused under Section 106, Criminal P. C. Further the order in this case was passed on 10th February 1948, and practically the period of one year in running out. In the circumstances I think it is not a fit case for interference. The revision is dismissed.