Ganga Nath, J.
1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, recommending that the conviction of Sheopujan Prasad under Rule 12, Clause (1) (b) of the United Provinces Sugarcane Rules, 1934, framed under Act 15 of 1934 be set aside. Sheopujan Prasad is the clerk of the licensed agent, Ram Daur Singh. On 5th March 1935, Mr. K. C. Shukla, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phulpur, visited Khorason Road Station and there checked the weight of sugarcane of a cart which had been weighed by the accused. He found that 2 maunds 13 seers weight had been entered short in the receipt issued by the accused to the owner of the cane. On the report of the Inspector (Mr. K. O. Shukla) the accused was prosecuted and convicted under Rule 12, Clause (1) (b), and sentenced to pay a fine of Rupees 100. The learned Judge is of opinion that the accused could not have been prosecuted unless the provisions of Clause (4) had been complied with. He has observed that:
There is nothing on the record to show that the provisions of Clause (4) were present in the mind of the Inspector when he initiated the proceedings and that he took any steps to satisfy himself about the provisions of Clause (4).
2. Rule 12, Clauses (1) and (2) lay down certain acts which would constitute an offence under the rule. For these offences the occupier, the manager or the licensed purchasing agent shall be liable for punishment if the acts are done by him or by any person acting on his behalf. On his being prosecuted under these clauses, it would be open to him under Clause (3) to apply to the Court to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court at the time, appointed for hearing the charge; and if, after the commission of the offence has been proved, he (the occupier or manager of the sugar factory or the licensed purchasing agent as the case may be) proves to the satisfaction of the Court:
(a) that he has used due diligence to enforce the execution of these rules, and
(b) that the said other persons committed the offence in question without his knowledge, consent or connivance, that other person shall be convicted of the offence.
3. Clause (4) lays down:
When it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the Inspector at any time prior to the initiation of a prosecution:
(a) that the occupier or manager of the sugar factory or a licensed purchasing agent has used all the due diligence or enforced the execution of these rules, and
(b) that the offence has been committed without the knowledge, consent, connivance of the occupier or manager or the licensed purchasing agent as the case may be or in contravention of his orders,
the Inspector shall proceed against the person whom he believes to be the actual offender without first proceeding against the occupier or manager of the sugar factory or the licensed purchasing agent and such person shall be liable to the like fine as if he were the occupier or manager or the licensed purchasing agent as the case may be.
4. Under this clause the Inspector has to satisfy himself before the initiation of a prosecution, and if he feels satisfied, he shall proceed against the person whom he believes to be the actual offender without first proceeding against the occupier, or manager of the sugar factory or the licensed purchasing agent. The rule does not lay down that it would be incumbent on the Inspector to satisfy the Court that he had satisfied himself as required under the clause. As a matter of fact as the wordings of the clause show, the Inspector has to satisfy himself prior to the initiation of the prosecution. The very fact that the Magistrate initiated prosecution against the applicant would be enough to show that the Inspector; felt satisfied that the occupier or manager of the sugar factory or the licensed) purchasing agent was not guilty. There is no illegality in the prosecution or the conviction. As regards the sentence, there can be no doubt that a sentence of Rs. 100 for the first offence is very severe. The learned Sessions Judge's recommendation for the reduction of the sentence is accepted and the sentence is reduced from Rs. 100 to Rs. 25. The reference is accepted partly to this extent only.