Emperor vs Mohunt Ramdas

Mohunt Ramdas has been punished by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Madhubani with a fine of Rs. 30 for having failed to prepare and retain a counterfoil of rent receipts granted to raiyats. The Sessions Judge has recommended that the order be set aside and has also expressed some doubt whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction in the matter. Reading the definition of ''offence'' in sec. 4(o) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with sec. 29 (2) and the last entry in Sch. II of that Code, we entertain no doubt that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to try a landlord for the act specified in sec. 58 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, namely, failure to prepare and retain counterfoils and rent receipts. But the trial of such an offence must be conducted with the ordinary procedure. In the present case there was neither examination of witnesses on the part of the prosecution nor a plea of guilty on the part of the accused. The Magistrate relied on an admission alleged to have been made by the accused and recorded in a report written by a police-officer in another case and he examined the accused on oath. These proceedings were wholly irregular. Witnesses should have been examined in the ordinary way including if necessary the police-officer to whom the admission is said to have been made.

A conviction had on a trial conducted in this way cannot be sustained. The conviction and fine are accordingly set aside. If the raiyats or any of them desire to proceed with the prosecution the trial must be held in the ordinary way.