1. In this case the accused, a ferry contractor, has been convicted of an offence under Section 19 of Act (II of 1890), for levying excess tolls.
2. Apart from Prosecution witness No. 1, whose evidence was rightly discredited in the original Court, there is no evidence to support the conviction. The money in each case is said to have been demanded by, and paid to, a Paraya servant of the accused and in each of the several instances deposed to, the accused was either not present at the ferry at all, or on the opposite side of the river to that on which the toll was demanded and paid. Whatever suspicion may be entertained, no legal presumption can be drawn from this that the accused (in the language of the Sub-Magistrate) 'connived at the exaction made by his servant.' Apart from this, it must be pointed cui that each individual levy of excess toll constitutes a distinct offence: and that the principles embodied in Sections 233 and 234, Criminal Procedure Code, which apply not only to warrant-cases, but to summors cases also, appear to have been violated. The view expressed by the Deputy Magistrate in his explanation that the accused could by prosecuted not for levy of excessive toll on the 17th November 1910 or any particular date, but for his unauthorized collection of tolls generally' is manifestly wrong.
3. The conviction is set aside. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.