S.S.VYAS, J. - (1.) THIS revision reveals the deplorable manner, in which the trial in a warrant case, was conducted by the judicial Magistrate and the jail appeal was disposed of has time in a mechanical and routine way by the learned Session Judge.
(2.) ACCUSED Sbanker was convicted under Sections 454 and 380/75, IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's like imprisonment under the first court and three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's like imprisonment under the second count by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Begun vide his judgment dated November 22, 1982. He filed a Jail appeal challenging his conviction, but the same was dimissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh on January 17, 1983. It would be proper to briefly read all the facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision petition. The police submitted a cballan against the accused on November 20, 1982 in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Begun for the offences under Sections 454 and 380/75, IPC. The accused submitted an application on that very day before the Magistrate that he admitted the prosecution case and his case be disposed of with out delay. The learned Magistrate, there upon, convicted him under Sections 454 and 380, IPC, on the same day (20 -11 -1982). It would be profitably to reproduce the order of the learned Magistrate: 20&11&82 , ih ih us ;g pkyku f[kykQ eqyfte 'kadj twes 454&380@75 vkbZ ih lh es izLrqr fd;k eqdnek ntZ jftLVj es A eqyfte 'kadj tSy ls gkftj vk;k pkyku dh udys nh xbZ vfHk;qDr us tqeZ Lohdkj djus dh nj[okLr izLrqr dh A ftl ij vfHk;qDr dks vijk/k /kkjk 45&380 vkbZ ih lh dk nks'kh ekuk tkrk gS Altk ds ftUrq ij vfHk;qDr o , ih ih dhs lquk x;k A , ih ih us tkfgj fd;k fd vfHk;qDr iwoZ es ltk ;kQrk gS AjsdM+ es ns[kk x;k vr okLrs lquus tqeZ /kkjk 75 vkbZ ih lh fnukad 22&11&82 dks is'k dh A
(3.) ON 22.11.1982, the learned Magistrate framed a charge against the accused for purpose of Section 75, I.P.C. in the folio wing manner: ;g fd vkius rkjh[k 2&11&82 dks lqcg 11 cts ds yxHkx pksjh dh vkSj muds }kjk vkius ,slk vijk/k fd;k tks Hkkjrh; n.M+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 454&380 Hkk n l - ds v/khu n.M+uh; gS vkSj vki 'kadj firk ojnkth Mkaxh ij ;g Hkh vkjksi gS fd vki mDr vijk/k djus ls iwoZ eq -u - 49@71 o 195@76 vUrZxr /kkjk 475] 380 Hkk n la es eqfUlQ ,oa U;kf;d eftLVsV fuEckgsM+k /kkjk Hkkjrh; n.M+ lafgrk ds v/;k; 17 ds v/khu rhu o'kZ dh vof/k ds fy, dkjkokl ds n.Muh; vijk/k ds fy, vFkkZr jkf= xqIr Hksnu ds ,oe~ pksjh ds vijk/k ds fy, nks'kf;r fd;s x;s tks nks'k fl) vc rd iw.kZr;k izLrqr vkSj izekf.kr vkSj vki Hkkjrh; n.M+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 75 ds v/khu ifjofrZRk n.M+ us n.M+uh; gS A vkSj es blds }kjk funsZ'k nsrk gwW Afdss vkids fo:) vufo{kk dh tkos A iz'u ua - 1%& - - - - iz'u ua - 2%& D;k vki vkjksi Lohdkj djrs gS ;k vufo{kk pkgrs gS A mRrj %& gkW eq;