EMPEROR Vs. PARSHOTTAM JAGJIVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner seeks to have the order of conviction against him revised, The accused has been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Surat of refusing to furnish information required by the Municipality under bye-law 4 framed under Section 48(f) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. The Municipality called upon the petitioner to furnish information which they required with regard to children of school going age and they purported to do so under the said bye-law. The petitioner refused to furnish the information. Consequently he was prosecuted for a breach of this bye-law; and he was sentenced under bye law 5 to pay a fine of Rs. 2.

(2.) Then he made an application to the Sessions Court with a view to have this matter referred to this Court. But the learned Sessions Judge declined to refer tie case to this Court.

(3.) The present application is made to this Court to have the conviction and sentence set aside. The application is supported on two ground?.