Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-04-1904
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.378
1. The question whether an offence under Act XIII of 1859 can be tried summarily has been answered in the affirmative by the Madras High Court in In re Higgins (Weir's Criminal Rulings p. 466) and by the Allahabad High Court in Queen-Empress v. Indarjit 11 A. 262 and in the negative by the former Court in another case, Pollard v. Mothial 4 M, 234. We prefer to follow the ruling last cited. A penal enactment must be construed strictly and it appears to us that under Act XIII of 1859, Sections 1 and 2, the proceedings of the Magistrate up to and inclusive of the passing by him of an order for either the repayment of the advance or performance of the contract do not constitute a trial for any 'offence' as defined in the Criminal Procedure Code. Where there has been a wilful neglect or refusal on the part of a person to perform his part of the contract, the Statute enables the Magistrate to give at the option of the complainant to such person a locus panitentioe by ordering him either to r...
Tag this Judgment!