MEHTA, J.—These are the fourteen references submitted by learned Additional District Magistrate, Nagaur, recommending that the orders of the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur, convicting Ram Kishan and thirteen other accused persons of the offence under sec. 34, Police Act, be set aside and the cases should be remitted to the original court for fresh trial according to law. As common question of law arises in all these 14 references, they can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.

2. The common features of the cases are that on June 4, 1968, Nagaur Police organised a raid with a view to remove certain encroachments on the public thoroughfare in Nagaur City. This step was taken under S. 34 of the Police Act. Ram Kishan and 13 others were found to have made encroachments on the public road. In respect of intrusion of each of the 14 accused persons the police prepared a memo on the spot and submitted the same to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur. That very day the Magistrate read out the memo prepared by the police to the accused concerned and on his admission imposed a certain amount of fine on him.

3. All the fourteen accused persons felt aggrieved by the orders of their convictions and sentences and they filed revision petitions in the court of the Additional District Magistrate, Nagaur. On receipt of revision applications, that court ordered suspension of the sentences and submitted these references to this court for the aforesaid purpose, on the ground that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of secs.242 and 243, Cr.P.C.

4. It is first to be seen whether or not the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur, complied with the provisions of S. 243, Cr.P.C., and the accused have been deprived of the substance of fair trials, as a result of which their convictions are legally invalid.

5. It is necessary to reproduce at this stage by way of illustration the charge framed by the Magistrate against the accused Poonam Chand as also the judgment produced in the case. The charge reads as under:

"A hud has been erected in front of his shop on the public thoroughfare and glass and wooden almirahs have been installed thereon. This hud adjoins the road and obstructs general traffic."

The judgment of the Court is in the terms following:—

"Offence was read over and explained to the accused, who admits the guilt, and under S. 34 of the Police Act he is fined Rs. 40/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for twenty days.

Language used in respect of the charges and judgments in other cases is almost identical. S. 34, Police Act, is in the terms following:—

"Any person who, on any road or in any open place or street or thorough-fare within the limits of any town to which this shall be specifically extended by the State Government commits any of the following offences, to the obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage of the residents or passengers shall, on conviction before a Magistrate, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees or to imprisonment with or without hard labour not exceeding eight days; and it shall be lawful for any police-officer to take into custody, without a warrant any person who within his view commits any of such offences, namely :

FIRST—Any person who slaughters any cattle or cleans any carcass; any person who rides or drives any cattle recklessly or furiously, or trains or breaks any horse or other cattle;

SECOND— Any person who want only or cruelly beats, abuses or tortures any animal;

THIRD—Any person who keeps any cattle or conveyance of any kind standing longer than is required for loading or unloading or for taking up or setting down passengers, or who leaves any conveyance in such a manner as to cause inconvenience or danger to the public;

FOURTH—Any person who exposes any goods for sale;

FIFTH—Any person who throws or lays down any dirt, filth, rubbish or any stones or building material; or who constructs any cowshed, stable or the like or who causes any offen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document