(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi, dated 15 - -6 - -1973, dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant against his conviction under Section 228 IPC sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default, to undergo three weeks' R. I.
(2.) IT appears that on 26 -8 -1972, when Sri R. S. Rastogi, Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Varanasi (North) was holding the trial of one Shafiq Ahmad under Section 228 IPC, Raj Kishore. the applicant, appeared in the Court and uttered the following words :
(3.) APART from the above, in my opinion, the Court was not even required to record the statements of the Advocates and could convict the applicant under Section 228 IPC even without recording their statements. In the instant case, even if one ignores and does not take into account the statements of the two Advocates, the conviction of the applicant under Section 228 IPC is capable of being sustained. Section 480 Code of Criminal Procedure prescribed the special procedure which is to be followed in certain cases. This section applies to a case covered by Section 228 IPC as well. It has been said in this section that if any offence is committed in the view or in the presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and, if it thinks fit, take cognizance of the offence and sentence the offender to fine not exceeding Rs. 200/ -. Accordingly, in the instant case, the conviction of the applicant cannot be set aside even if it be assumed that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant about the refusal to permit the applicant to cross -examine the witnesses was correct.