MD SAFI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point in this application for admission of an appeal which was heard after notice to the State is whether an appeal lies at all The applicant Md. Safi was convicted by a Presidency Magistrate under Section 323, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month on that count. He was further convicted under Section 354, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default to rigorous imprisonment for two weeks more. The sentences of imprisonment on the two counts were to run concurrently.

(2.) The only section which provides for a right of appeal from convictions and sentences by Presidency Magistrates is Section 411, Criminal P. C. It runs as follows:

(3.) In this connection it is necessary to see what the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure is with regard to rights of appeal from convictions by different classes of Magistrates. Mr. Banerjee on behalf of the State points out that under Section 6, Criminal P. C. Presidency Magistrates have been treated as a different class of Magistrates altogether. Now, as regards the convictions by Magistrates of first class who are not at the same time Presidency Magistrates, Section 408, Criminal P. C. confers a general right of appeal on any person convicted on a trial held by such Magistrates. This section not merely confers the general right of appeal but also determines the forum of that appeal. Then Ss. 412 to 414, Criminal P. C. are the exceptions to this general right of appeal. Section 415 of the Code again is a proviso to Ss. 413 and 414. As regards appeals, from convictions by Presidency Magistrates, as already pointed out, the entire right of appeal is conferred by Section 411 and if there is any limitation on the right of such appeals, the limitations and the general power are contained in the same section, which clearly consists of only one complex sentence. It is noticeable that as regards appeals from convictions by Presidency Magistrates the Code follows a different line from what it does as regards appeals from convictions by Magistrates other than Presidency Magistrates. This difference of treatment cannot but be held to be deliberate.