CHHITAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by accused Chhittar Singh, who has been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kishangarh, under secs. 54 (d) and 57 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, and sentenced to 1-1/2 and 1 month's rigorous imprisonment respectively. He had filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, but since it was dismi-sed, he has approached this Court.

(2.) I have gone through the record of the trial court and find that this case has not been tried in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is clear from the record of the trial court that the petitioner was examined and thereafter a charge was framed and he was convicted on his plea. It may be pointed out that the offence under sec. 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years and therefore it is triable as a warrant case. Sec. 252 Cr. P. C. lays down the procedure which is to be followed by a Magistrate in trying a warrant case which is instituted otherwise than on a police report. According to this procedure the Magistrate should first hear the complainant, if any, and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. It is only upon taking all the evidence referred to in sec. 252 that he should proceed to examine the accused and if he finds that no case is made out against him, then he should be discharged. If he finds that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under Chapter 21 he should frame a charge against the accused. The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused. If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate must record that plea and triad it is left to his discretion to convict him thereon. If the accused does not plead guilty, and wants to enter on his defence, then he should record his defence evidence and then decide the case. It is clear that in the present case the Magistrate straightaway proceeded to examine the accused as if he was trying a summons case. It seems that the Magistrate was aware of the fact that the case was triable as a warrant case and that it why he framed a charge, but he seems to have made a confusion between the procedure laid down in secs. 251-A and 252 Cr. P. C.