Skip to content


The Public Prosecutor Vs. R. Desigan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1949)2MLJ16
AppellantThe Public Prosecutor
RespondentR. Desigan
Excerpt:
- - the magistrate was therefore well within his power in trying this case summarily under section 260, criminal procedure code......time being to try in a summary way the offences specified in sub-section (1) of section 260 of the code of criminal procedure, 1898, may, on application in this behalf being made by the prosecution try in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 262 to 265 of the said code any offence punishable under this act. it is not disputed in the case, that this case was tried summarily on an application made in this behalf by the prosecution. the magistrate was therefore well within his power in trying this case summarily under section 260, criminal procedure code. under section 414, criminal procedure code, no appeal lies against a sentence of rs. ioo when an accused is convicted summarily under section 260.3. it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that section 414.....
Judgment:

1. The accused in this case was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Devakottai in C.C. No. 275 of 1947 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 for an offence under Clause 4(2) of the Madras Rationing Preparatory Measures Order, 1945, and regulation 14 of the regulations framed under, Clause 12 of the Madras Rationing Order, 1945, and under Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules read with Section 7(1) of Act XXIV of 1946. The accused preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge of Ramnad who acquitted him. The Public Prosecutor has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal.

2. The main ground on which the order of acquittal is attacked is that under Section 414, Criminal Procedure Code, no appeal lies against this judgment of the First Class Magistrate as the case was tried summarily under Section 260, Criminal Procedure Code. That section mentions what offences and classes of offences may be tried summarily under that section. It does not in terms provide for the trial of offences under the Rationing Order, but Section 12 of Act XXIV of 1946 says:

Any Magistrate or Bench of Magistrates empowered for the time being to try in a summary way the offences specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, may, on application in this behalf being made by the prosecution try in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 262 to 265 of the said Code any offence punishable under this Act.

It is not disputed in the case, that this case was tried summarily on an application made in this behalf by the prosecution. The Magistrate was therefore well within his power in trying this case summarily under Section 260, Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 414, Criminal Procedure Code, no appeal lies against a sentence of Rs. ioo when an accused is convicted summarily under Section 260.

3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that Section 414 applies only to cases of conviction of offences mentioned in Section 260 and not for offences under a special Act as in this case. Section 414, Criminal Procedure Code, runs as follows:

Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any case tried summarily in which a Magistrate empowered to act under Section 260 passes a sentence of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees only.

The words 'in which a Magistrate empowered to act' indicate that the section applies not only to cases in which the Magistrate has got power to act under Section 260 for the offences mentioned in the section but also where he is otherwise empowered to act under that section. The words ' empowered to act ' refer not merely to implied power contained in Section 260 but also refer to express powers conferred on the Magistrate by other provisions in other enactments. No appeal therefore lies against the sentence of Rs. 100 to the Sessions Judge and the appeal was therefore incompetent. The order of the appellate Court is set aside. This does not in any way prevent the accused from filing a revision to this Court under Sections 435 and 439, Criminal Procedure Code.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //