AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 103 words
1.
It is clear from the evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 2 that the only information, that the Village Magistrate--accused--had, was that a
jewel, belonging to P.W. No. 2, was missing, whether because it had been stolen or because the daughter of P.W. No. 2 had lost it. This being so,
it cannot be said that the Village Magistrate had any information of the commission of that offence of theft, which, u/s 45(c), Criminal Procedure
Code, he was bound to communicate to the Magistrate or Police. We set aside the conviction against the accused and direct that the fine, if paid,
be refunded.