MALCHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District recommending that the conviction and sentence of the applicant Mal Chand under sec. 45(1) (G) and 57 of the Sambhar Shamlat Municipal Act, 1947, be set aside.

(2.) PARTIES have not appeared. I have gone through the record of the case as well as the order of reference and the explanation of the trial Magistrate. The accused, when he was questioned by the court, admitted that he had a bicycle without a licence, but added that the bicycle was neither being used nor was capable of being used as its tyers and tubes were worn out and a part of it was also damaged. The cycle did not belong to the accused but was pledged with him by its owner. The learned Magistrate thought that this statement of the accused amounted to confession of guilt and consequently, without recording any evidence, convicted and sentenced him. The statement of the accused, as it stands, cannot be said to be a confession of guilt. Mere possession of a bicycle without a licence is no offence under the law. The bicycle should be used or should be capable of being used. In this case, according to the statement of the accused, it was not capable of use. It was therefore, necessary for the prosecution to prove that the bicycle was being used or was capable of being used. This has not been done. Under clause 7 read with clause 1 of the bye-laws made under secs. 45(1) (G) and 57 of the Sambhar Shamlat Municipal Act, 1957, the keeping of a bicycle without a licence is punishable, but the definition of vehicle shows that it includes a bicycle which is used or capable of being used on public street. As said above, there is no evidence whatsoever, that the bicycle in question was capable of being used or being used on public street and statement of the accused could not suffice for conviction.