HIRA MISTIRY Vs. RAM BRIKSH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10 only for contravening a District Board bye-law by placing some logs of wood on a District Board road. The point which has been urged before me in support of the petition for quashing the conviction and sentence, is that on 1st February 1950, the petitioner made an application under the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 526, Criminal P. C., for an adjournment in order to enable the petitioner to make an application for transfer of the case, and to get an order thereon. The learned Magistrate refused to grant an adjournment for the purpose. It is contended that this was an illegality which vitiated the entire trial. The rule which was issued by this Court was confined to this ground only.

(2.) In order to appreciate the point raised, it is necessary to state aome more facts. The case against the petitioner was a summons caee. The prosecution evidence closed on 11th January 1950, On 19th January 1950, defence was declined. Later on, on the same date, a petition was filed with a prayer that the trying Magistrate should hold a local inspection. The trying Magistrate held a local inspection on 21st January 1950. On 3lst January 1950, arguments for the prosecution were heard. The defense lawyer was not free on that date, and the case was adjourned to Ist February 1950. On that date an application was filed purporting to be an application under Section 526 (8), Criminal P. C. The learned Magistrate refused to grant an adjournment on the ground that the defence had closed its case much earlier, and the application was merely intended to defeat or delay justice. I may state here that no ground whatsoever was alleged why the case should be transferred, and up till now no ground has been alleged why it was considered necessary that the case should be transferred from the file of the Magistrate who tried it.

(3.) It is true that there are several decisions which have laid down that the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 526, Criminal P. C., are mandatory, and the Court is bound to grant an adjournment if the conditions laid down in that sub-section are fulfilled. The question in the case before me hinges upon the meaning of the expression "at any stage before the defence closes its case" ocaurring in that sub-section. Sub-section (8), as it stood before the amendments of 1932, did not contain the words mentioned above. Those words were introduced by the amendments made in 1932. In the report of the Select Committee, it was stated as follows :