DINA DAYAL PODDER Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Belonia, South Tripura detected an offence allegedly committed by the revision-petitioner punishable u/s. 265 of I.P.C. took cognizance of the offence, explained the offence to the accused, purported to record his plea admitting the guilt and proceeded to convict him and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to simple imprisonment for 7 days. This judgment is now challenged.

(2.) The entire proceeding of the learned Magistrate appears, Ld say the least, amazing, besides being wholly illegal. The Magistrate in question was a Judicial Magistrate, 1st class. He had no authority to detect the offence. Having detected an offence without authority, he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance; having taken cognizance, he should have reported the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide about transfer of the case from his file to the file of some other Magistrate. According to the records the Magistrate went to a shop and found that the measuring scale used for measuring cloth was shorter in length than that of the standard meter. He immediately concluded that the accused had committed an offence punishable u/s 265 of I.P.C. He held court in the shop itself. There may be two views as to whether this is a good or a bad system; but there can be no opinion that it is wholly contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also violates one of the principles of natural justice that no man shall be a judge in his own cause.

(3.) For these reasons, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed.