EMPEROR Vs. HIMANCHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Local Government from an order passed by a Magistrate acquitting Himanchal Singh upon a charge of an offence under Section 174, I.P.C. The Magistrate acquitted the accused following, as he was bound to do, the decision of two Judges of this Court in Emperor V/s. Bhirgu Singh . The Local Government being dissatisfied with the decision in that case that a citation to appear issued under Section 147, Land Revenue Act (U.P.), 3 of 1901, was not a summons, notice or order which the recipient was legally bound to obey have appealed from the decision of the Magistrate. Without waiting to see whether the Bench of two Judges of this Court before whom the appeal might come agreed with the decision of the two Judges of this Court above mentioned, the learned Government Advocate, presumably under instructions from the Local Government, secured an immediate reference by the Chief Justice of the appeal to a Full Bench. We think that the Chief Justice would not have referred the matter to a Full Bench at all if the point we have mentioned had been brought to his attention. If the Bench of two Judges before whom the appeal would have come in the ordinary course agreed with the two Judges who had already decided the question, there would have been an end of the matter. If, on the other hand, they had disagreed, it would have been open to them to ask the Chief Justice, in accordance with the ordinary procedure to refer the matter to a Full Bench.

(2.) The question now before us is whether a citation to appear issued under Section 147, U.P. Land Revenue Act, 3 of 1901, is a summons, notice or order which the recipient is legally bound to obey.

(3.) The facts are simple. Himanchal Singh was in arrears in the payment of Government revenue for a sum of Rs. 108-6-0. Whether or no a writ of demand had or had not already issued to him under Section 147 we are not informed; nor is it in fact material. The document which was Served upon him is a citation to appear, purporting to be drafted in accordance with form 2 of the forms drawn up by the Local Government by virtue of its power under Section 234 Revenue Act. This document was treated in the argument before us by both sides as if it was a document of a composite character embodying a writ of demand and a citation to appear in the one document. But this is not so as a reference to the forms will show. The English form does not contain an unconditional intimation to appear. It requires the recipient to appear on a certain date and at a certain hour "if the entire arrears plus the talbana for this citation are not sooner paid. The vernacular of the document which was actually served calls upon him to appear if the amount "is not paid with the greatest promptitude" (jaldtar ada na kardiya jawe".) The translation is not accurate but the inaccuracy is immaterial. The document further bears a foot-note intimating that failure to attend is punishable (in the criminal Courts) under Section 174 I.P.C. This footnote manifestly begs the question and is immaterial, except so far as it may indicate a desire to give to the intimation a force which the Act itself certainly does not expressly give it. The Local Government has power to make rules and prepare forms under Section 234, but manifestly, as Section 234 itself declares, only rules "consistent with this Act."