STATE Vs. NAROTTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is reference by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, Abu Road under sec. 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has arisen under the following circumstances.

(2.) ONE Samant Singh, Prohibition Inspector filed a complaint against two accused Narottam Lal and Rati Lal under sec. 186 I. P. C. The case was registered and the accused were summoned. On the first date of hearing, i. e. the 5th February, 1960 the Magistrate recorded in the proceedings that the statements of accused Rati Lal and Narottam Lal were recorded in S. R, No. 43/60 and both of them denied the charge. Thereafter he recorded the prosecution evidence on three different hearings. On the 2nd May, 1960 statement of the accused Narottam was recorded. With regard to Rati Lal, it was observed that Rati Lal's statement could not be recorded on account of his dumbness and deafness and a consequent inability to understand things. The Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence on the record came to the conclusion "that an offence under Sec. 186 I. P. C. is clearly made out". However without recording a formal conviction and without disposing of the case against Narottam he referred the case to this Court under sec. 341 Cr. P. C. , on the ground that the accused Rati Lal is deaf and dumb.