SURYA MANI TEWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 Criminal P. C. for reviewing the judgment of this Court passed by me on 14-12-1976, rejecting the criminal revision filed by the applicant in limine.

(2.) SRI B. P. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in this case, urged that as the Magistrate did not comply with the procedure prescribed by Section 248 of Chapter XIX of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, therefore, the sentence awarded to the applicant was illegal and was liable to be quashed. The material portion of Section 248, on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the applicant, in support of his submission, is quoted below: (2) Where, in any case under this Chapter, the Magistrate finds the accused guilty, but does not proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 325 or Section 360, he shall, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence, pass sentence upon him according to law.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, in the instant case the applicant was not given an opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence in accordance with the procedure prescribed by this Section before the same was passed upon him by the Magistrate, Sri V. P. Goyal, learned State Counsel, however, controverted the above submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant and urged two contentions in support of his submission. The first contention was that the application under Section 482 Criminal P. C. was not maintainable. The second argument advanced on merits by him was that Section 484 (2) (a) of the New Code clearly requires a criminal court to decide the cases pending on the date of enforcement of the New Code to be decided and concluded in accordance with the provisions of the Old Code. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 248 Criminal P. C. contained in Chapter XIX of the New Code did not apply to the facts of the present case and, therefore, non-compliance of the same by the Magistrate did not vitiate his judgment.