EMPEROR Vs. TIKA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the Local Government. A citation, Ex. A in the case, under 8. 147, U.P. Land Revenue Act of 1901, was served upon Tika Ram the opposite party in the present case. He failed to appear on the date fixed, 11th March at noon and the criminal prosecution out of which these proceedings arose was instituted against him under the first part of Section 174, I.P.C. The citation was dated 25 February 1927, but admittedly it was not served on the accused until 5 p.m. on 10 March 1927. Tika Ram admitted that the citation was served on him but stated that his village was 15 kos from the tahsil and that he fell ill of the evening of 10 March and could not attend or pay the revenue. He tendered no proof that he was ill, and, so far as the evidence on the record goes the process server stated that he was not ill at 5.p.m. on 10 March. Tika Ram further did not offer any proof that his village was 15 kos distant from the tahsil, nor, except by implication, did he suggest that the distance was the real cause of his failure to attend. He probably intended the statement that his village was 15 kos distant to be read with his statement that he was ill as accounting for his failure to attend at the tahsil. It is not denied by the Crown that the statement as to the distance is accurate; it is only urged that it was for the accused to lead evidence on the point. So far as the facts go we may take it as unlikely that the accused would have wrongly stated the distance of his village from the tahsil when the truth as to that fact was not merely easily ascertainable in the Court of the Magistrate, but must have been very well known to everybody in the locality.

(2.) In the view, however, that we take of the case the point is only of minor importance. The essential facts are that the citation read as follows: Whereas arrears... are due by you... you are hereby directed to present yourself personally in this Court on 11 March 1927, at noon in case the entire arrears together with the process fee for this sum are not paid vary soon.

(3.) It is manifest that in view of the fact that though the citation was issued on 25 February it was not served till 10 March 1927, at 5 p.m., and called on the accused to be present at noon on 11 March "in case the entire arrears... are not paid very soon" no conviction under 8. 174 could possibly stand. Whether the distance was a full 15 kos or not the village was clearly a long way from the tahsil, and it would be most unreasonable to serve a notice on a person at 5 p.m. one day that he was to be present with the money on the next day by noon at a distant place. Moreover, it is manifest that the accused was entitled to the benefit of the condition implied in the words "in case the entire arrears are not paid very soon." In view of that condition he would clearly be entitled to expect a reasonable time within which to make the necessary arrangement. Clearly the citation was phrased on the basis that it would be served upon him in good time for him to take the necessary action and it was issued apparently in good time, but through no fault of Tika Ram it was not served on him till 5 p.m. on 10 March.