HIRANMOY BHOWMIK Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P. C. The learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Crown does not oppose it. The accused in this case was charged and convicted of an offence under Section 6, Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1930; that is to say, he was a person in respect of whom an order had been made under Sub-section (1), Section 2 who had wilfully disobeyed the order. He pleaded guilty to this offence and appealed to the Sessions Judge on the question of sentence only. The Judge came to the conclusion that the conviction could not be supported; but in view of the accused's plea of guilty, he has made this reference. Now, Section 2 of the Act provides that the local Government may make certain orders as to notification of residence and such other matters with regard to a person about whom there are reasonable grounds for the local Government to believe that he has acted in contravention of the provisions of the Arms Act or has offended in certain other ways. It is provided in that section that such orders shall be received by the local Government at the end of one year from the date of the making of the order, and shall not remain in force for more than one year unless upon such review the local Government directs their continuance. The order in this case was made on 7 January 1933 and was amended on 31 May 1933. There was a further order on 14 June 1934. Since there was no review of the orders dated 7 January 1933 and 31 May 1933 within the time required by law, the order was no longer in force at the time when the accused was alleged to have disobeyed it on 2 July, 1934.

(2.) The result is that the conviction and sentence cannot stand. We accordingly accept the reference, set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the accused be set at liberty forthwith. Jack, J.

(3.) I agree.