H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - (1.) THE Applicant was convicted by a Magistrate 1st Class Under Section 125(9) of the Defence of India Rules for contravening Clause 4(i) of the UP Sugar Control Order, 1963 and sentenced to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - . On appeal, his conviction was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi, but he reduced the sentence to two days rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - ; hence this revision.
(2.) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows. The Applicant holds a licence for selling sugar in retail at Mahroni. Sugar being a controlled commodity, he was bound to maintain a correct and proper account of the sale and stock of sugar. On 3 -9 -1964, he was found carrying 58 kilograms of sugar. Suspicion arose and accordingly, his stock was checked and then it was found that although the stock register showed 6 quintals and 55 kilograms of sugar, only 5 quintals and 99 kilograms of sugar was in stock. On these facts he was prosecuted for contravening Clause 4(i) of the UP Sugar Control Order, 1963 and punished Under Rule 125(9) of the Defence of India Rules. The only point raised in support of this revision is that as the Police Officer who conducted the search was not holding a search warrant from a Magistrate authorised Under Rule 148, he was not competent to conduct the search and therefore, the proceedings which had been initiated against the Applicant as a result of the illegal search were void ab initio and the conviction of the Applicant cannot be sustained in law. I do not find any force in this contention. It is ture that the police officer was not authorised to search the premises of the Applicant, but he had an authority Under Rule 154 to make a report in writing of the facts constituting contravention of any of these rules and the court was competent to take cognizance of the same. It is, therefore, obvious that the proceedings which resulted in the conviction of the accused were perfectly valid, the court being entitled to take cognizance of the same on the report furnished by the police officer Under Rule 154 of the Defence of India Rules. It cannot, therefore, be held that the entire proceedings were void ab initio. It is true that there was an irregularity in conducting the search inasmuch as the police officer was not fully authorised in accordance with Rule 148 of the Defence of India Rules to enter and search the place in the manner specified in a warrant, but it is neither such an irregularity which goes to the root of the matter, nor it has caused any prejudice to the accused. That being so, in my opinion, it is cured Under Section 537 Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) IN the instant case the trial Judge was quite competent to take cognizance of the case under the rules on the report of the police officer and the sentence passed by him cannot be reversed or altered on account of the irregularity in the conduct of the search. The accused knew what offence he was being tried for and he had every opportunity to meet the same. The irregularity which had occasioned in conducting the search had not affected the case against him in any manner. The principle laid down in Slaney's case : AIR 1956 SC 116 applies and the conviction of the Applicant cannot be quashed on this ground.;