( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order passed on 20-1-68 by Mr. B. N. Doctor City Magistrate 10 Court Ahmedabad in Summary Case No. 1915 of 1967 whereby the appellant-accused came to be convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300. 00 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and a half months for an offence of possessing 60 drams of liquor without pass or permit on 27-2-67 under sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act hereinafter to be referred to as the Act.

( 2 ) THE point made out by Mr. Divatia the learned advocate appointed for the appellant-accused was that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is illegal and void Inasmuch as the learned Magistrate has not recorded the judgment in the case and thereby contravening the mandatory provisions contained in sec. 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

( 3 ) IT appears on a perusal of the proceedings of this case that on 18 since the surety of the accused came to be discharged at his request the accused was taken into custody by the Court. The case had then proceeded and on 20-1-68 after hearing the arguments of the learned advocates appearing in the case passed an order of conviction and sentence against him. He however did not record a judgment in the case. It appears that on 24-1-68 the copy of the judgment was asked for by the accused And instead of supplying him the certified copy of the entire judgment he came to be supplied with the extract from the judgment in the case. That copy was received by him in jail on 27 Thereupon he dispatched a memo of appeal to this Court against the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. On receiving the same the matter came up for admission before me on 5-2-68. Since there was no judgment attached to the memo of appeal and with a view to avoid any delay being caused in the matter coming up before this Court for admission (he being in jail) till a full certified copy of the judgment is made available to the accused in jail and then received by this Court I directed the record and proceeding of the case to be called for from the Court of the learned Magistrate. On the order reaching the Court it appears that he wrote out the judgment on the next day i. e. on 6-2-68 and sent up the case-papers along with the judgment on the next day. The appeal came up for admission on 9-2-68. Since it was admitted it has come up for final hearing to-day.

( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate has appended a note before he set out the reasons in his judgment. That note is intended to show that he pronounced the order so that he might not have to stay as an under trial prisoner any longer and for that reason as stated by him the reasons for his conviction were not recorded. He has then stated that through over sight they could not be written afterwards. While the first reason given by him appears to be hardly convincing as while one can understand though it may not be a valid reason This he would have to be in jail when he is to be acquitted for some time that may pass In writing the judgment but when he was In jail a day here or there would not much matter and even if a longer period was likely to take in writing out the judgment he could well take into account any such period of his being required to be in jail as an undertrial prisoner while passing the order of sentence against him In the case. The real reason therefore appears to be that while he pronounced the order in the case probably he must have thought of writing the judgment soon thereafter but could not do so through oversight. Any way the fact remains that this judgment containing the reasons for arriving at his finding in the case came to be given so late as on 6-2-68 and that again after he received an intimation for sending the record and proceedings of this case. In fact an impression was created In seeing the extract of the order supplied to the accused