Brij Nandan Panday vs Emperor

Ross, J.—The petitioner haa been convicted u/s 411, Indian, Penal Code, in a summary trial and haa been sentenced to one month''s rigorous imprisonment for the offence of being dishonestly in possession of a piece of wood which had been stolen, being the top of a cell box of a Railway carriage.

The principal ground on which the conviction is assailed, and the only ground which I propose to deal with, is that the record of the summary trial does not show on its face that the property stolen was less than Rs. 50 in value. u/s 260 Clause (f), Criminal Procedure Code, jurisdiction to try summarily an offence u/s 411, Indian Penal Code, is limited to cases where the value of the property does not exceed Rs. 50. The record is to be kept in the form prescribed in Section 263, Criminal Procedure Code. Clause (f) of that section requires that in cases falling u/s 260 (f) the value of the property in respect of which the offence was committed shall bo set forth. In the present case the Magistrate has not stated the value of the property.

It is urged in support of the conviction that in the charge-sheet there occur the letters and figures "P.S. Rs. 10" "P.R. Rs. 10", and it is argued from this that the property in respect of which the offence was committed was valued at Rs. 10. It seems to me, however, that before the Magistrate could assume jurisdiction to try the accused in a summary form, he had to satisfy himself that the property in respect of which he was trying the accused was less than Rs. 50 in value. He did not in fact direct his mind to this question at all and there is no reference in his record to any such question. The record of this trial does not on its face show that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the accused summarily and in my opinion, therefore, the conviction cannot stand. See Queen v. Abheen Parrida 20 W.R. Cr. 17, where the following passage occurs: "The conviction in this case, which was drawn up in the form prescribed by Section 327, does not say any such thing, nor does it anywhere appear what the value of the property alleged to have been stolen really was. Upon this ground, we set aside the proceedings of the Deputy Magistrate as being without jurisdiction."

As to the question of re-trial, I take into consideration the facts that this is a first offence and that the offence is of a very petty nature and that-the petitioner is said to have been in jail for four or five days. It, therefore, appears to me that it is unnecessary to order a re-trial in this case. The conviction and sentence are set aside.

The petitioner will be released from jail.