JUDGMENT

Murray-Aynsley J:

I can find no merits in these appeals as regards questions of fact and I do not consider the penalties excessive. However, Mr. Das has raised certain questions of procedure which need consideration. When first charged the appellants were charged under s. 160 of Cap. 45 and s. 25 of Cap. 46. Mr. Das during the hearing raised the point that persons could not be charged in the alternative with offences under the Penal Code and with offences under other Enactments. This objection is based on Indian views as to the meaning of the Indian equivalent of s. 166 Criminal Procedure Code. I am unable to follow the reasoning on which such a limitation is based. Confronted with this the Magistrate charged the Appellants with an offence under Cap. 46 viz, s. 25 under which they had been already charged in the alternative. There was a verbal error in the new charge. The appellants were given an opportunity of having witnesses recalled for prosecution but did not avail themselves of it. Neither did any of them elect to give evidence.

In my opinion any irregularities that may have occurred are within the scope of s. 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and I consider that