HARRIES,.J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of a Municipal Magistrate convicting the appellant of an offence under Section 386 (1) (a), Calcutta Municipal Act read with Schedule 19 of the Act.
(2.) THE charge was that the appellant conducted the business of electroplating or nickel -plating at certain premises without the necessary permission or license from the Corporation.
(3.) IT seems that two previous prosecutions had been brought against the appellant and in each case he had pleaded guilty and was convicted. On this occasion, however, he pleaded not guilty. He was found guilty by the learned Magistrate, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 per diem over a period of time. Mr. Sudhangshu Mukherjee has taken a number of points and I shall deal with the points seriatim. He first contended that the trial was invalid by reason of the fact that the Magistrate on one day heard the case or arguments in the case in the absence of the accused person. It appears that on 19th May which was a date to which the hearing had been adjourned the accused was absent and a medical certificate was tendered with a view to showing that he was too ill to attend. The learned Magistrate did not accept this explanation and insisted on proceeding with the case.;