RAM NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three connected references by the learned Sessions Judge of Etawah arise out of three connected prosecutions under the U. P. Excise Act. The facts of the case are that Ram Narain is the licencee for a country liquor shop. He had to pay monthly instalments towards his licence fee. Ram Narain did not pay a number of monthly instalments in time, as required by the conditions of his licence. The defaults started from October, 1952. The Excise Inspector made an inspection on 29-12-1952, and noticed that instalments for October, November and December 1952 had not been paid by Ram Narain. He was, therefore., prosecuted under Section 64 (c), Excise Act for wilful failure to pay monthly instalments in breach of the conditions of the licence. The accused was fined Rs. 5/- under Section 64 (c), U. P.Excise Act. That conviction has now become final. The Excise Inspector visited Ram Narain's shop again in January, February and March, 1953. Three separate prosecutions were started on the basis of the three inspections dated 31-1-1953, 13-2-1953 and 13-3 1953 in addition to the prosecution which was based on the inspection dated 29-12-1952. The accused was again convicted in the three cases based on the Inspections of January, February and March, 1953. In each of these cases the accused pleaded guilty, and he was fined Rs. 5/- under Section 64 (c), U. P. Excise Act. Against these, three orders of conviction Ram Narain filed three separate revision applications before the learned Sessions Judge of Etawah. These revision applications were numbered as 70, 71 and 72 of 1954. The learned Sessions Judge has recommended that the convictions of the accused in the three cases should be set aside. In the alternative, the convictions should be so set aside or altered as to avoid convicting the accused twice for the same offence. This order of reference has given rise to three references, which have been numbered as 350, 357 and 358 of 1954.

(2.) The first point raised by the learned Sessions Judge is that, the record maintained by the trial Court was defective. Against item No. 5 of the printed form for summary trials (offence complained of) Section 64 (c), U. P. Excise Act was noted. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that, this note was not sufficient to give the accused an idea of the nature with alleged offence. There is some force in this contention. However, one must remember that the accused has already been convicted for a similar offence, and that conviction has become final. In the present cases also the accused person expressly stated that for certain months he had failed to pay instalments, and admitted his guilt. It does not, therefore, appear that the accused was prejudiced on account of the defective record maintained by the trial Court.

(3.) Now I pass on to the main point raised in the reference. The point is that the accused has been convicted more than once for the same offence. This contention seems to be well-founded. The records of the four cases show that in the, case in which conviction has become final, the conviction was for failure to pay instalments in time for the months of October. November and December, 1952. In summary trial No. 78 the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for his failure to pay instalments for November and December, 1952 and January, 1953. In summary trial No. 79 the conviction is with respect to default for December 1952 and January 1953. In summary trial No. 86 the conviction relates to default for November and December 1952 and January. 1953. It will thus be seen that, default for the same months forms the basis of conviction in more cases than one. It is to be seen whether such repeated convictions relating to the default of the same month is permissible under the U. P. Excise Act.