JUDGMENT

Stuart, CJ - This is a reference from the learned Sessions Judge of Sitapur, suggesting that the conviction of Ohandrika Singh should be set aside and that the fine paid by him should be refunded. Ohandrika Singh is a zamindar in the Sitapur district. In the month of July 1927 he was late with his land revenue instalment. He owed the Crown Rs. 344. In cousequence, the Tahsildar of Sitapur issued a citation upon him under the provisions of Section 147, Local Act 3 of 1901 (Land Revenue Act), directing him to appear at the Sitapur Tahsil on the 12th July 1927. He did not appear on that date, but he remitted on 12th July 1927, a sum of Rs. 160 and three days later ho paid up the balance. The Tahsildar, however, thought fit to prosecute him under the provisions of Section 174, I.P.C. and the Deputy Magistrate who tried the case convicted him under that section and fined him Rs. 50. The learned Sessions Judge has submitted this reference upon the ground that there is considerable doubt as to whether such a conviction is legal and also ttpori the ground that, in any circumstances, as the man paid Rs. 160 on the date fixed for his appearance and the balance three days afterwards, the fine was excessive. I note at the beginning that we agree with the learned Sessions Judge on the second point. We consider that if an offence were committed by the applicant it was of a technical and venial nature. Upjn the facts there is no reason to find that he was contumacious in his disobedience and it is my intention, in event of upholding his conviction, to suggest the reduction of the fine to the nominal fine of Re. 1.

2. The point of law before us is one that requires our close consideration in view of the fact that there is a complete difference of opinion on it between the late Judicial Commissioner's Court of Oudh and a Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. In 1910 a Bench of the Judicial Commissioner's Court consisting, of Mr. Chamier (now Sir Edward Chatnier) and Mr. Evans decided in Rambali Singh v. Emperor, [1910] 13 O.C. 55, that a citation to appear issued under Section 147, of local Act 3 of 1901 is an order to the defaulter to appear at the time and place named therein within the meaning of Section 174, I.P.C. and that intentional disobedience of it is an offence under that section. The decision in question does not contain full reasons. It is in the main a decision construing the words. There has been a recent decision in the Allahabad High Court: Emperor v. Bhirgu Singh, AIR1927All122 , in which a Bench of the Hon'ble High Court consisting of Mr. Justice Dalai and Mr. Justice Boys decided that the issue of a citation to appear to an alleged defaulter under Section 147 Of Local Act 3 of 1901, does not involve him in any legal liability to attend, and that non-compliance with it does not render him guilty of an offence under Section 174, I.P.C. The view taken by these two learned Judges is shortly that the ordinary meaning of the word "citation" is that it is rather in the nature of an invitation to appear than of an order to attend. They thought that the meaning of the word "citation" as used in Section 147 of Local Act 3 of 1901 was similar to the word citation as used in the present Sections 235 and 283 of Act 39 of 1925 corresponding to Section 199, Act 10 of 1863 and Section 250 of the same Act and Section 169, Act 5 of 1881.

3. In deciding the question referred to us I propose to look first at the wording of Section 147. The words are as follows:

When an arrear of revenue becomes due, a writ of demand calling on the defaulter to pay the amount within a time therein stated, or a citation to appear, may issue.

4. There is nothing in the section to prevent both "the writ of demand" and "the citation to appear" being issued simultaneously. I note first that the words used are "a citation to appear." The words used are mdre than "a citation." There can be no doubt as to the fact that the Board of revenue considered t