WILLIAMS LUIS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the accused against his conviction under Section 193, Indian Penal Code ana-the sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 201/- Imposed upon him.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly are that on 8-1-1955, one Jeanne Mondon was arrested by the Colaba police for an offence under Sections 5 and 6, Prevention of Prostitution Act, 1923. The accused and one Mohiddin Mahomed acted as panches in that case. The case against Jeanne Mondon was tried by Mr. Nasrulla, presidency Magistrate 16th Court, Bombay. While that case was pending the accused end Mohiddin were arrested on the night of 13/ 14th February on the charge of having assaulted one Luis Jacob. They were detained on the night of 13/14th February at the Colaba Police station. They were produced before the Presidency Magistrate from 26th of February to 14th March. On the 14th March the Magistrate was requested to discharge the accused as the medical report from the hospital showed that the injury caused to Luis Jacob was simple hurt. In the case against the Jeanne Mondon the accused was examined as a witness on 3rd March. After his cross-examination was over, at the suggestion of the defence the Court put certain questions to him. In answer to these questions the accused Stated as follows:

(3.) MR. Lulla who appears on behalf of the accused has strenuously urged that the answers given by the accused that he had never been arrested in any case by the police, that he had never been in custody and that he had never entered the Courts before, were in reply to a question put to him whether he had been arrested in a prohibition case. In his evidence Sub-Inspector Parmer has deposed that a question had also been put to him whether the accused had been arrested in a prohibition case. The notes of his evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate contain the following statement. "1 do not know if there is any prohibition case against William Luis (present accused)". If, therefore, the accused had also been questioned only with regard to the prohibition case the learned Magistrate in the notes of the evidence of the accused would have recorded that the accused had never been arrested in any prohibition case as he has done in the notes of evidence of Sub-Inspector Parmer. Mr. Lulla has invited our attention to the judgment of the learned Magistrate from which it appears that the question put to accused was whether he had been arrested in a prohibition case. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: