AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 133 wordsPrinsep, J.—These cases have been submitted to us by the Sessions Judge of Midnapore, because sentences of fine have been imposed by the Magistrate of the Division of Contai for breaches of the stamp law contrary to the rule laid down in the case of the Queen v. Nadi Chanel Poddar 24 W.R. Cr. Rul. 1.
It appears that the Collector authorized this officer, u/s 43 of the Stamp Act, to institute and conduct the prosecution in these cases. Under these circumstances we think that he was not competent also to try them. Any possible inconvenience might have been obviated by the Collector''s employing the Government pleader or some other person to conduct the prosecution u/s 43. We quash the convictions and sentences, and direct that the fines, if paid, be refunded.