BHUBNESHWAR PRASHAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Bhubneshwar Prashad who at the time of the occurrence was a mukhtar practising at Monghyr has been convicted under Section 47(a), Excise Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment by a Magistrate of the First Class of Bhagalpur. There were two other accused with him who were convicted under the same section but sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment each. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and the sentences passed upon the various accused. Bhubneshwar Prashad, mukhtar, alone has come up in revision before this Court. Mr. Yasin Yunus appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken me through the evidence in the case to show that his client is not guilty of the offence. He has also raised a point of law and that is that the provisions of Section 242, Criminal P.C, were not complied with. In view of the order that I propose to pass it is not necessary for me to go into the various discrepancies and the criticisms advanced by Mr. Yunus. When the rule was issued by Noor, J. he drew the attention of the Magistrate particularly to this ground taken in the petition for revision. The learned Magistrate has sent an explanation which runs as follows: The provision of Section 242, Criminal P.C., was duly complied with. The particulars of the offence were stated to the accused.

(2.) While forwarding this explanation of the Magistrate the learned District Magistrate has made the following remarks: I have the honour to forward the original record of the case and to say that the Magistrate reports that he complied with the provisions of Section 242, Criminal P.C., but it is unfortunate he did not record the question put and the answers given in writing. His report on the point is enclosed. I have nothing further to add.

(3.) Looking at the order-sheet of the learned Magistrate it appears that the report of the Excise Officer was received on 18 December 1935 and on the third date the charge-sheet was received and the case was transferred to Mr. S.N. Lal, the gentleman out of whose judgment this petition arises. The fourth order dated 8th January 1936 runs as follows: Not a single prosecution witness present. Summon them for 25 January, 1936. The accused on bail of Rs. 250 each. They plead not guilty.