LACHMAN PRASAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two applications for revision of an order of the learned Sessions Judge of the Shahjahanpur District confirming orders of a learned Magistrate convicting the applicant of an offence under Section 141(1) read with Section 268, Cantonments Act, and of an offence under Section 141(2) of the same Act. The applicant was the occupier of certain premises within the cantonment area. On 18 September 1934 a notice was served upon him by the Executive Officer of the Cantonment authority requiring him to remove certain filth which had accumulated on his premises and to render the same clean and sanitary within 24 hours of the service of the notice. The applicant did nothing and appears to have informed the Cantonment Authority that it was impossible for him to remove all the rubbish which had accumulated on the premises within 24 hours. The Cantonment authority gave him a short extension of time, but nothing was done within that period.

(2.) In due course proceedings were commenced against the applicant for breaches of the sections of the Cantonments Act, previously mentioned. He was convicted of an offence under Section 141(1) read with Section 268, Cantonments Act, and fined a sum of Rs. 10. He was further convicted of an offence under Section 141(2), Cantonments Act, and fined Rs. 20. Upon an application to the learned Sessions Judge of the Shahjahanpur District, for revision of these orders the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions and sentences imposed. It is now urged that the convictions in these cases must be set aside by reason of non- compliance with the terms of Section 266, Cantonments Act. That section provides: Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Court shall proceed to the trial of any offence made punishable by or under this Act, other than an offence specified in Schedule 4, except on the complaint of, or upon information received from the Cantonment Authority concerned or a person authorised by the Cantonment Authority by a general or special order in this behalf.

(3.) Offences under Section 141(1) read with Section 268, Cantonments Act, and offences under Section 141(2), Cantonments Act, are not specified in Schedule 4 of the Act, and therefore no Court can proceed with the trial of any of these offences except on the complaint of or upon information received from the Cantonment Authority concerned or a person authorised by such authority by a general or special order in that behalf. In the present case there is no evidence whatsoever to show how the proceedings were commenced. There is upon the record a letter addressed to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, purporting to be signed by the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Authority. No evidence was called to prove this letter and the production of it proves nothing at all. It may or may not be signed by the Executive Officer, but there was no evidence to prove his signature.