EMPEROR Vs. MAHOMED KASIM GULAM MOHIDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter comes before us in revision from an order passed by the learned First Class Magistrate at Khed in the Ratnagiri District on January 4, 1946, by which on a charge of breach of the District Magistrate's order No. WS/R1758 of November 12, 1945, punishable under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, the learned Magistrate fined the accused Us. 100, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and ordered the confiscation of certain grains of the value of Rs. 1,351.

(2.) The District Magistrate's order mentioned in the charge is in respect of the declaration of stocks of grain held by any person and the alleged offence was a breach of that order. The accused on being convicted went in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge at Ratnagiri, and he rightly came to the conclusion that no appeal lay to him by virtue of Section 412 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because the accused had pleaded guilty. The powers of this Court are of course wider than those of a Sessions Judge and we have the power in a proper case either under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code or under our inherent jurisdiction to quash a conviction and sentence if the ends of justice so demand.

(3.) What happened in this case was as follows. The accused was arrested at 11 o clock on Sunday December 30, 1945, and he was put up before the Magistrate on the very same day and the learned Magistrate then proceeded to take the evidence of the police patil and two panchas with regard to the alleged illegal retention of grains without a due declaration having been made. It appears from the evidence which we allowed to be taken in this Court of the accused's brother, who was present throughout the proceedings, that what occurred before the learned Magistrate was that the accused asked the Magistrate to give him time. He said: "We are helpless, but we are prepared to defend the case". It seems that the learned Magistrate did not accede to that application but continued to hear the ease, and accordingly the accused had no opportunity of seeking legal aid. Having proceeded with the case, the Magistrate then formulated the charge which he read out to the accused and the Magistrate asked "Do you plead guilty or not guilty", and then the evidence of the witness (the accused's brother) continues: "My brother said he pleaded guilty, that it was the first offence and that he should be given pardon". He was then asked: "What did the Magistrate say ?" He replied "The Magistrate did not reply anything. He closed the case and took my brother's signature", and, as his evidence continues to show, the accused was told to call at Khed, which was the taluka headquarters, during the course of the next week to hear the result and the result was in fact announced on January 4 when, as I have said, the accused was fined Us. 100.