K. C. CHUNDER, J.

( 1 ) THIS rule was issued at the instance of an accused person who had been convicted by a Municipal Magistrate sitting in a Mobile Court for an offence under Section 386 (l) (c), Calcutta Municipal Act, read with Section 488 of the said Act. The accused' was caught hold of and produced before the Magistrate and the charge against him was that he kept a buffalo. The learned Magistrate's judgment as regards the evidence is this :"sukdeo (that is, the accused) does not plead guilty. Section S. G. C. Roy says he has one buffalo. He denied Fined Rs. 15, in default S. I. for week. " accepting everything that the Section S. O. G. C. Roy said as gospel truth I fail to see how any conviction could be based on the evidence. Perhaps as it was a mobile Court it was too much for the learned Magistrate to be burdened with a copy of the Municipal Act. If he had barely referred to Section 386 (l) (c) itself he would have seen that it is in these terms : " (c) keeping horses, cattle or other four footed animals for sale or hire or for sale of the produce thereof". Mere keeping of a' buffalo is not an offence and all that the evidence says is that he merely kept a buffalo. The o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document