STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHANTILAL VALLABHADAS PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, for quashing the conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Second Court ). Wardha, on an accused who was found guilty under Section 26 (2) of the Maha-rashtra Municipalities Act. He is alleged to have behaved in a disorderly manner within the premises of a polling station on the day of the election. On 14-6-1967 there was an election going on in the Municipal Town Hall at Pulgaon. On that day accused No. 1 Shantilal for whom the reference is made and another accused Dwarka Prasad were shouting and behaving in a disorderly manner in the premises of that Polling Station and causing disturbances. The Presiding Officer as well as the Polling Officers who were on duty could not, therefore, continue their work. The Presiding Officer, therefore, reported the matter to the Police Officers there and in consequence thereof, both the accused were arrested and charge-sheeted. Both the accused admitted their presence in the Town Hall but denied having conducted themselves in a disorderly manner. The learned Magistrate who tried both the accused convicted both of them under Section 26 (2) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. 1965, and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a week. Aggrieved by this decision, the original accused No. 1 filed a revision application in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Wardha. The learned Sessions Judge is of the view that the offences under S. 26 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act are not cognizable offences at all and that because the offence which is alleged to have been committed by the accused is not a cognizable offence and because there was no complaint by the Chief Officer, therefore, the order of conviction by the trial Court is illegal and improper. It is on the basis of this ground that the learned Sessions Judge has referred the matter here.

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader has opposed this reference contending that the offences under Secion 26 are cognizable offences and, according to him, therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was quite legal and proper. It is in this view, therefore, the order of conviction passed by him is quite legal. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the accused argues here that the offences under Section 26 are not cognizable at all and. therefore, according to him, the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal. We will, therefore, have to examine Section 26 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act to see what kind of offences it provides.

(3.) SECTION 26 of the Maharashtra Muni-cipalities Act is as follows;