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
9 paragraphs · 220 wordsWe cannot agree with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the words ""other person duly authorised as aforesaid "" in Section 98(2) of Local
Board''s Act refer only to"" some person, duly authorised by him in that behalf "" mentioned in Section 98(1), for we think that the use of the single
word "" other "" precludes this view, which would require the word ""any"" or ""such other"" to support it. In our opinion there must be a separate
authorization under each clause of the section, and the words "" as aforesaid "" in Clause 2 must be read as meaning ""by him in that behalf."" In this
view the notice issued by the union chairman was valid, as authority had been given to him Ex. C.S. 33 of the Act does not restrict specific
delegations allowed by other sections of the Act, and there is no reason to read the words ""other person"" as meaning Vice-President alone.
The case against accused being a summons case no charge was necessary, and as accused was represented by a vakil he must have been
aware of the charge against him, and could not have been prejudiced by the Magistrate''s omission to explain it to him.
We set aside the order of acquittal and confirm the conviction and sentence of the Sub-Magistrate.