Jagdish Prasad vs Emperor

James, J.—The applicant is a railway watchman who hag been sentenced on summary trial to one month''s rigorous imprisonment for theft of a silver topped stick from a Railway carriage. The conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge of Monghyr.

Mr. Asghar on behalf of the applicant contends that the case ought not to have been tried summarily when the applicant protested against that form of trial. He cites in support of his argument the decision in the case, of Subramania Ayyar v. Queen [1883] 6 Mad. 396, In that case a head constable of many years'' service was convicted on summary trial of criminal intimidation with a view to prevent a person from giving evidence of a serious offence.

It was held by the High Court that the case was not suitable for a summary trial on account of the serious character of the charge of intimidation and of the fact that consiviction must entail dismissal of the head-constable from a position to which he had risen after many years'' service, since it had to be remembered that when the Magistrate tried the case summarily he deprived the accused of the privilege of an appeal.

Bat none of those conderations apply in the present case. The charge here was a simple charge of theft of the kind suitable for summary trial; and though the watchman may be liable to be dismissed as a result of conviction, the ground upon which a retrial was ordered in Subramania Ayyar''s case [1883] 6 Mad. 396, no longer applies, since the amendment in 1923 of Section 414, Criminal P.C.

The application is rejected.