RAJESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. PROVINCE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order of Mr. B. Prashad, Sessions Judge of Gaya, upholding the conviction of the applicant under Section 47(a), Excise Act.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the applicant had been found in possession of one seer of ganja, and that he had admitted his guilt before two Excise officers. The learned Magistrate sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months, and this sentence has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) The rule was argued before us on three grounds, (i) that the learned Judge has committed an error of record inasmuch as he is wrong in his statement that "the evidence of Baldeo Chaudhury (p. W. 3), Saheb Singh (p. W. 4) and Baudha Pasi (p. w. 5) proves satisfactorily the prosecution story," (ii) that the learned Judge has not considered the evidence of the defence witnesses at all, and (iii) that the trial was illegal, because the learned Magistrate had omitted to state the particulars of the offence to the accused in accordance with the provisions of 8. 242, Criminal P. C.