JUDGMENT - Gajendragadkar, J.

1. This is an application for leave, to appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that the case involves a substantial question of law.

2. The petitioner was charged, before the learned Presidency Magistrate, 9th Court, Eandra, with having committed offences under Sections 4(a) and 5 of Bombay Act 4 of 1887. The learned trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner of both the said offences. For the offence Under Section 4(a) he sentenced the; petitioner to three months rigorous imprisonment and he added that as the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced under Section 4(a), he did not propose to pass a separate sentence or him Under Section 5 of the said Act.

Against this order of conviction and sentence the petitioner preferred a revision application to this Court. Shah J. who heard this revision application set aside the conviction recorded against the petitioner under Section 4(a) but maintained his conviction under Section 5, and he imposed a sentence of three months in respect of the offence under Section 5. It is this order which Mr. Dalai seeks to challenge by preferring an appeal to the Supreme Court.

3. Mr. Dalai says that in sentencing the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document