STATE Vs. JAGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Ganganagar and has arisen in the following circumstances: The case relates to the district of Ganganagar where there is a Municipal Board. That Municipal Board passed certain Bye-Laws with respect to Teh Bazari under the relevant provisions of the Bikaner State Municipal Act (No. VI of 1923 ). These were published in the Bikaner Rajpatra of the, 30th January, 1937. Jagat Singh is one of the persons who had taken certain lands from the Municipal Board of Ganganagar under the Teh Bazari Rules. A complaint was filed against him in June; 1951, by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board in which it was said that certain lands had been auctioned to Jagat Singh and certain terms were imposed upon him in connection with the auctioned land. The complaint added that according to term No. 12 of the auction terms, it was provided that on breach of any of the auction terms, the person taking the land would have to leave it within one week. The complaint then went on to say that Jagat Singh had been committing breach of term No. 4 of the auction terms on account of which the rent and the penalty had to be realised through the Tehsil and that a large sum of money as arrears of rent for eight months was still due from Jagat Singh and he was not paying it promptly. Then it is said that notice was given to Jagat Singh on the 17th of April, 1951, and he was directed to leave the land at once; but Jagat Singh had not paid any heed to the notice. Consequently, this complaint was filed with the prayer that after necessary action, Jagat Singh should be convicted, and the court should get the land evacuated.

(2.) A curious feature of this complaint is that it does not mention anywhere what the provisions of the law is which Jagat Singh has contravened and what is the provisions under which he should be convicted. Normally, in a complaint one finds mention of a section of some law under which the conviction is to take place and if a conviction is desired for breach of rules or bye-laws, a mention should also be made of the bye-law in question which has been broken and the provision of the law under which the breach of the bye-law is punishable. A complaint which does not disclose under what section of the law Jagat Singh was prosecuted or for the breach of what provision of any bye-law he was to be punished, should have been thrown out by the Magistrate at once or, at any rate, he should have asked the Executive Officer of the Municipality to point out the law under which he was to convict Jagat Singh. The Magistrate, however, did nothing of that kind. All that I find is that on the 3rd of October, certain questions were put to Jagat Singh. He of course admitted that he was in possession of the land but put forward the plea that he had not paid rent at the rate fixed by the Municipal Board because he had filed a suit under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (Act No. XVII of 1950) for fixation of standard rent. He also said that the Municipal Board could not eject him in view of the provisions of Act No. XVII of 1950. This was treated by the learned Magistrate as an admission of guilt and Jagat Singh was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25/-, and was ordered to give up possession by the 13th of October, 1951. It was also ordered that if he failed to do so, he would be fined at the rate of Rs. 5/- per day. The only reference I find to any provision of the law even in this judgment is in these words: