Public Prosecutor vs R. Desigan

Somasundaram, J.—The accused in this case was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Ddvakottai in 0. 0. No, 275 of

1947 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 for an offence under Clause 4 (a) of the Madras Rationing Preparatory Measures Order, 1945 and Regn.

14 of the regulations framed under Clause 12 of the Madras Rationing Order, 1945, and under K. 81 (2), Defence of India Rules read with

Section 7(l) of Act xxiv [24] 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.

The main ground on which the order of acquittal is attacked is that u/s 414, Criminal P. C,, no appeal lies against this judgment of the First Class

Magistrate as the case was tried summarily u/s 260, Criminal P, C. 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 s. 12 of Act xxiv [34] of 1946

says:

Any Magistrate or bench of Magistrates empowered for the time being to try in a summary way the offence specified in Sub-section (1) of Section

260, Criminal P. C, 1898, may on application in this behalf being made by the prosecution try in accordance with the provisions contained in Ss.

262 to 265 of the Said Code any essence punishable under this Act.

It is not disputed in this 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 u/s 260, Criminal P. C. u/s 414, Criminal P. C, no appeal lies against a sentence of

Rs. 100 when an accused is convicted summarily u/s 260.

It is contended by the learned Counsel foe the accused that Section 414 applies only to cases of conviction of offences mentioned on Section

260 and not for offences under a special Act as in this case. Section 414, Criminal P. C. rung,aa follows:

Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any ease tried summarily in which a Magistrate

empowered to Act. u/s 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. u/s 260 for the offences mentioned in the section hat 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

Ss. 435 and 439, Criminal P. C.