HAMID AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Moradabad recommending that a conviction made by Sri Balwant Singh, Magistrate Ist Class, of the applicant be set aside.

(2.) IT appears that the applicant was charged with having sold a bag of cement for Rs. 8/ - when the control price for a bag of cement was about Rs. 4/ -. The accused denied having made any such sale. As a matter of fact he said that he had no cement in his possession which he could possibly have sold on that date. The case was tried summarily by the Magistrate and I must say that the trial of the case was conducted in a most unsatisfactory manner. There was no proper charge in the case. The accused appears to have been told that the offence which he had committed was an offence under Section "4/7 Control Act". It should have been known to the Magistrate that there is no such thing as Section "4/7 Control Act" under which a person could have been charged. The Magistrate in his explanation has said as follows about this aspect of the matter:

(3.) I fail to see how the learned Magistrate calls this mistake a technical mistake. I also fail to see how, if the Magistrate had made a mistake in regard to the offence with which he was charging an accused he could have possibly explained to him the charge correctly.