KHAGENDRA NATH BARBORA Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case was found guilty and convicted under Section 2(8), Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 as amended. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -, On appeal to the Sessions Judge, U. A. D. the conviction was maintained but the unserved part of the sentence of imprisonment was remitted. The sentence of fine was allowed to stand. He has assailed the validity of the order by a revision petition to this Court.

(2.) THE conviction has been recorded Under Section 2(8), Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act but it is agreed that this is due to a clerical mistake. The conviction was meant to be Under Section 2(7) of the same Act.

(3.) IN the Courts below the validity not only of the order but of the Act under which the order was passed was challenged. At this stage the learned Counsel for the petitioner has pressed three points namely (1) that by reason of their failure to produce the Deputy Commissioner of Sitasagar in order to establish the validity of the order, the contravention of which is the subject -matter of the offence, the prosecution have omitted to establish an important ingredient of the offence, (2) that 'mens rea' did not exist and (3) that the facts did not disclose an offence as the case was covered by Section 79, Penal Code.