STATE Vs. RAGHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two References under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code are by the learned Sessions Judge of Burdwan, both made by him on the same date in respect of two orders of conviction and sentence passed by the same Magistrate of Assansol in two trials said to have been held in what has been described as "Mobile Court" over which that learned Magistrate presided. The two cases have been heard together as they raise same questions of law.

(2.) It appears from the letters of reference and also from the uncontroverted facts stated in the petitions made by the convicted persons before the learned Sessions Judge that on 7th February, 1963, a Magistrate Sri M. Chanda who was said to be the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Asansol was holding a Mobile Court on the road side. There in nothing however either in the orders or whole of the records to show that the said learned Magistrate was the sub-divisional Magistrate on either of the two dates of the two trials.

(3.) In Reference No. 26 it appears that 013 22nd January, 1963, the two accused persons in that case were the driver Raghuram and Conductor Bhaskar Nayak of a passenger-motor-bus plying on the route. That bus bears the registration number. W. G. H. 3615 and is licenced to carry 30 passengers; but in violation of that condition, 36 passengers were being carried in the said bus at about 9.30 Hrs. on 22nd January, 1963. A Sub-Inspector of the District Enforcement Branch arrested both the accused persons and brought them before the said Magistrate. A report for prosecution in P. R. B. form No. 41, signed by Officer-in-charge of Jamuria P. S. in the District of Burdwan was made to the Magistrate alleging offence under Section 112 Motor Vehicles Act, against both the accused persons. That gave rise to Case No. M. V./ 50 of 1963, in the Court of Magistrate-in-charge of M. V. Cases, Asansol. The Magistrate recorded only one order in the order-sheet by which he took cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) Criminal Procedure Code, directed issue of summons, recorded that both the accused appeared before him, substance of the accusation was explained to the accused persons, they pleaded guilty, and they were convicted under Section 112 M. V. Act and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-in default to S. I. for ten days, and also direction to note the conviction (in the licence presumably) and to inform L. A. (Licensing Authority?). It may be mentioned that the whole order is in rubber-stamp impression in which only the appearance of the accused persons, section under which they were convicted and quantum of sentence have been entered by the hand of the learned Magistrate, who of course, signed it by his own hand. In the order sheet in the right hand column it has also been noted that the fine was paid. The Magistrate is mentioned there as only "Magistrate, Asansol" and does not mention at all whether he was the Sub-divisional Magistrate or a Magistrate empowered either under Section 260 or 190 Criminal Procedure Code.