LALTA PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Civil and Sessions Judge Kanpur, recommending that the conviction and sentence passed on Lajta Prasad be quashed and a regular retrial ordered.

(2.) Lalta Prasad has peen convicted Under Section 294, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30/. He was accused of uttering indecent remarks at young girls and ladies at the Vivek Talkies at Kanpur on 6-5-1964 at about 9.15 p.m. Lalta Prasad had denied the charge and alleged that he had a dispute with the constable when he tried to break the queue for purchasing the ticket at the second cinema show at the booking window and that the constable thereafter arrested him and falsely implicated him

(3.) The learned Magistrate tried the case summarily. It is clear from the evidence on record that Lalta Prasad is a permanent government employee at the Power House, Kanpur. The alleged offence involves moral turpitude and his conviction would amount to his dismissal. There is no doubt that Section 260 Code of Criminal Procedure gave the Magistrate power to try the accused summarily. But Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the Magistrate will try him in a summary way if he thinks it fit. Sub-section (2) of the same section further provides that when in the course of a summary trial it appears that the case is one which is of a character which renders it undesirable that it should be tried summarily the Magistrate shall recall any witness, who may have been examined and to proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by this Code. It is clear from the record that the Magistrate had known during the course of the trial that Lalta Prasad was a permanent government employee. The Magistrate should have, therefore, known that his conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude would involve his dismissal. In these circumstances a Magistrate would be expected to know that it was undesirable that the accused should be tried summarily. In fact, it has been repeatedly held by the various High Courts of India that summary procedure, though legal, was most inappropriate in cases in which government servants were concerned as accused persons because their conviction was likely to result in their dismissal from service which was a serious loss to them, wide Robert John v. Emperor,1932 AIR(Lah) 188, Emperor v. Rustamji Mancherjee,1921 AIR(Bom) 370 and Subramanya Aiyar v. Queen ILR Mad 396. With respect I agree with the view taken in these cases.