JUDGMENT

Cuming, J. - The Rule which was granted by my learned brothers Rankin and Mukerji, JJ., was argued before us on four grounds:

(1) That the provisions of Section 242 were not complied with.

(2) That no charge was drawn up and so accused was prejudiced in his defence as the case was treated as a warrant case.

(3) The provisions of Section 360 were hot complied with.

(4) An order u/s 522 was passed without notice to accused.

2. I propose to deal first of all with the first ground. The first point to be decided is what was the procedure followed by the Magistrate. Did he treat the case as a summons case or a warrant case. This is not easy to determine-Admittedly the Magistrate did not apply the provisions of Section 242 and so it may be argued he treated the case as a warrant case.

3. But he also drew up no formal charge from which it might be inferred that he dealt with the case as a summons case. An examination of the record, however, would show that the two sections under which summons was issued against the accused are summons cases and from this. I think we must hold that the case was treated as a summons case. That being so, the provisions applicable to a summons case would app