Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL V/S RAMA, decided on Wednesday, July 31, 1963.
[ In the High Court of Rajasthan, Criminal Reference 179 of 1962 of. ] 31/07/1963
Judge(s) : D.M. BHANDARI & B.P. BERI
Advocate(s) : J.S. Gupta, Mangha Ram.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page




municipal,council,rama,

  "1965 CrLJ 599"   ==   "1965 AIR (Raj) 107"  







judgment - (1.) THIS is a Reference by the Sessions Judge Ajmer recommending that the sentence of the accused Rama be enhanced to one week's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200 and in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days' further rigorous imprisonment.(2.) THE accused was challaned for having sold adulterated milk to Kartar Singh food Inspector Municipal Area on 2nd of July 1961. A complaint was filed on the 3rd of October 1961 by the Medical Officer of Health Municipal Committee Ajmer summonses were issued against the accused for 21st of November 1961. Summonses were not served and the ease was adjourned to 5th of December 1961. Thereafter there is a note on the back of the complaint which is as follows:m. P. I. present Accused present Particulars of the offence read over and explained to the accused. He pleads not guilty and furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500 each for regular Court attendance. But up on 8-1-1962. There is no date on this order. On 8-1-1962 the case was adjourned to 23-1-1962 without any further proceedings. On 23-1-1962 the case was again adjourned to 5-2-1962. On 5-2-1962 the following order was passed: 'parties present Particulars of the offence read over and explained to the accused Rama s/o Bhola. He pleads guilty and docs not wish to produce any defence. Hence the accused is convieted under Section 16 (a) P. F. A. '54 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 (Rupees five only) or in default to undergo 2 days' S. I. Most of what has been written above is part of the rubber seal affixed on the back of the complaint. Of this order only the name of the accused the offence for which he was hied and the amount of the tine and the days of imprisonment are filled up by the Magistrate.(3.) THE complainant was dissatisfied on account of the inadequacy of the sentence and he filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge Ajmer and the learned Sessions Judge Ajmer has made the present reference for enhancement of the sentence.(4.) WE find that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code have not been followed in the trial of this case. The case was tried as a summons case under section 242 Cr. P. C. When the accused appeared the particulars of the offence of which he was accused should have been stated to him and he should have been asked to show cause why he should not be convicted. It was not necessary to frame a charge and unless there was a formal charge there was no question of pleading guilty. Under Section 243 Cr. P. C. it is incumbent on The Magistrate trying the case to record the state ment of the accused in case he admits that he has committed the offence of which he is accused as nearly as possible in the words used by him. As already pointed out there arises no question of pleading guilty. In the rubber seal which was put on the 5th of February 1962 the words used are--he pleads guilty which have no relevance when the trial is of a summons case. What is required is the recording of the admission of the accused in the words used by him. The learned Magistrate failed to do so and convicted the accused on the ground that he had pleaded guilty. The use of a seal of the nature used in this case is not warranted by the provisions of the law. The accused was being tried for an offence for which he could have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and it is incumbent on the Magistrate to see that in such a trial the provisions of the law are obeyed. We regret that on such a trial the conviction of the accused cannot be maintained.(5.) WE therefore set aside the order of the Municipal Magistrate First Class ajmer dated the 5th of February 1962 and also set aside the sentence of fine imposed on the accused. We send back the case to the Municipal Magistrate First class Ajmer for re-trial in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal procedure Code.