BECHU LAL KAYASTHA Vs. INJURED LADY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a driver in the employ of the Calcutta Tramways Coy. Ltd. He has been convicted by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate tinder Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. Half of the fine has been ordered to be paid to a person injured by the negligence of the petitioner.

(2.) The present Rule was issued on the sole ground that Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not complied with. The Magistrate in his explanation states that Section 342 was not complied with because the case was a summons case and cites the decisions of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court Ponnusamy Odayar V/s. Ramasamy Thathan A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 15 and Dharma Singh V/s. King-Emperor A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 30 for the view that Section 342 does not apply to a summons case whether it be tried summarily or in the ordinary way.

(3.) In this Court convictions have in summons cases been set aside for failure to comply with Section 342 : Gulzari Lal V/s. Emperor A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 164; Surendra V/s. Isamaddi but we have not been referred to any case in which the applicability of the section to summons cases has been argued or the Madras decisions canvassed.