LALJI RAM Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule has been issued to show cause why the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 412, Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923, should not be set aside. The Rule has been issued on three of the grounds stated in the petition. In answer to the Rule the learned Magistrate has submitted an explanation to this Court in which the grounds upon which the Rule has been issued are not attempted to be met. He relies upon the record which he made of what was supposed to be an admission of guilt on the part of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate says this in his explanation: I have no personal recollection of what took place at the hearing, but it is impossible that I should have recorded the admission of the defendant who appeared without his having done so. On the charge being explained Lalji Ram admitted and pleaded guilty and thereupon I found him guilty and fined him Rs. 60, in default two months imprisonment.

(2.) The petitioner, in his petition to this Court, alleged that he did not plead guilty. He says that when he was called upon to plead he only said that the bottles had been taken from his shop and he remained silent and he apprehends that his silence was construed by the learned Magistrate as an admission of his guilt.

(3.) Of late several cases have come up to this Court from the Court of the learned Municipal Magistrate in which convictions were passed by him upon records of pleas as to admission of guilt on behalf of accused persons, and after such convictions this Court has been moved on the ground that there was no plea of guilty. It always becomes difficult in such cases to determine what exactly happened, unless the provisions of the law as to procedure are strictly followed. The present case was one under Section 412, Calcutta Municipal Act. It was a summons case, and the procedure to be adopted for the trial of this case is what is laid down in the Criminal P. C. with regard to the trial of summons cases. It appears that summons in this case was issued on 30 May 1924, and the date fixed for the case was 20th June 1924. On that day the petitioner was not present and the case was adjourned to 18th July 1924. On 18 July, presumably in the presence of the petitioner who had by that date appeared, the Food Inspector, Mr. K.D. Banerjee, was examined as a witness on behalf of the prosecution and the case was thereafter adjourned to 25 July for further evidence. On 25th July the following note was made by the learned Magistrate: Lalji admits and pleads guilty and I fine him Rs. 60; in default two months imprisonment.