JUDGMENT

1. This case has been referred by a learned Judge of this Court to a Bench of two Judges under Section 14(2), Oudh Courts Act, for decision. The learned Sessions Judge of Rae Bareli on an application in revision by one Abdul, who had been convicted by a Magistrate under Section 16, Motor Vehicles Act, and fined Rs. 15, reported the case to this Court under Section 438, Criminal P.C., and recommended that the conviction of the applicant be set aside and suitable orders passed in the case. The reason given by the Sessions Judge for this recommendation was that the notice sent to the applicant merely mentioned Section 16, Motor Vehicles Act, without referring to any rule or stating any fact from which the applicant could have been aware of the exact nature of the case against him. To support the contention that this defect vitiated the trial reference was made to the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Emperor v. Maiku Lal (1936) 13 Luck 126.

2. The learned Judge of this Court who referred the case to a Bench for decision referred also to another decision by a learned single Judge of this Court in Lal Chand v. Emperor (1934) 21 A.I.R. Oudh 370 which followed a decision by a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Emperor v. Rananjai Singh AIR 1928 All 261. In the latter case it was said that a summons issued by a Magisterial Court which does not contain in the form prescribed by the statute particulars of the place where the time when and the nature of the offence charged, may be disregarded by the person summoned, and proceedings taken thereon, if objected to, must necessarily be invalid. The learned Judge who made the reference to the Bench observed that it was not clear to him why the proceedings taken on an invalid summons (if by proceedings is meant a trial) must necessarily be invalid if objected to. He further observed that no reference was made in the Allahabad case to Section 537, Criminal P.C., which distinctly states that subject to certain provisions there in before contained, no finding, sentence, or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the summons. He referred also to Section 351, Criminal P.C., under which any person attending a Criminal Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of inquiry into or trial of any offence of which such Court can take cognizance and which, from the evidence, appears to have been committed, and may be proceeded against as though he had been arrested or summoned. He added that in his opinion a summons is nothing but an order to a person to attend a Court. Failure to put in sufficient particulars in the summons may result in the accused coming before the Court not knowing what case he has to meet. If then the offence as to which complaint has been made is not made clear to him or if he has not been given a proper opportunity to put in his defence he may be prejudiced.

3. We have been referred by learned Counsel to a large number of cases, many of which however are not really relevant to the question under consideration. It has no doubt been held in several cases that certain action cannot be taken against an accused where the summons or warrant issued to him is defective. In In re Abdul Rahim Beg A.I.R 1920 Mad 352 it was held that a summons which was not sealed as required by Section 68, Criminal P.C., was illegal and an order granting sanction to prosecute for disobedience of the summons was set aside. In Jagpat Koeri v. Emperor A.I.R 1917 Pat 17 which was not dissented from in a later Patna Ruling, Kartiok Chandra v. Emperor A.I.R 1932 Pat 175, it was held that a warrant signed by a Magistrate who was not the presiding officer of the Court within the meaning of Section 75 is invalid, and a person arrested on such a warrant commits no offence in escaping from the custody of the constable who arrested him. In Fattu v. Emperor A.I.