EMPEROR Vs. BHIRGU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case one Bhirgu Singh was tried summarily by a Magistrate of the First Class and convicted under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence alleged against him was that being legally bound to attend at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice or order from a public servant he had intentionally omitted to attend. In this case the public servant who issued the directions to attend was a Tahsildar and the direction purports to have been issued under Section 147 of the Land Revenue Act. That section says that when an arrear of revenue becomes due, a writ of demand calling on the defaulter to pay the amount within a time therein stated or a citation to appear may issue.

(2.) It was alleged on behalf of the Crowns that a citation had issued. A Tahsildar had power to issue the citation. The only question that arises in the case is whether the power to issue citation connotes a legal liability on the part of the person to whom the citation is issued to attend. The Board has framed a form which embodies both the writ of demand and the citation in one document.

(3.) It was in the following form: Whereas a sum of R... on account of arrears of instalment in respect of...is due against you, you are hereby directed (hidayat) that in case the entire arrears aforesaid and process-fee in respect of this summons are not paid immediately you should appear before this Court at...on....