1. This Rule must be made absolute on the second of the two grounds, on which it was granted, namely, that the Trial Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Section 539B. It appears that the Trying Magistrate inspected the place under the provisions of that section and also that he drew up a diagram and made an inspection note thereon. But he omitted to comply with the provisions of the second clause of this section and the note did not form part of the record of the case. This provision in the section is, in our opinion, mandatory and the failure to comply with this express direction of law was an illegality and not an irregularity which could be cured if we hold that there was no prejudice to the accused.
2. We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner and direct that the accused be re-tried according to law. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
Hriday Govinda Sur Alias Hridgovinda Sur v. Emperor
Hriday Govinda Sur Alias Hridgovinda Sur v. Emperor
(High Court Of Judicature At Calcutta)
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | 03-07-1924
Advocate List
-
None.
Bench
- HON'BLE JUSTICE NEWBOULD
- J
- HON'BLE JUSTICE MUKHERJEE
- J
Eq Citations
- 82 IND. CAS. 767
- (1925) ILR 52 CAL 148
- LQ/CalHC/1924/283
Head Note
Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 539 B — Inspection note not made part of record of case — Mandatory requirement — Held, is mandatory and not an irregularity which could be cured if there was no prejudice to accused — Constitution of India, Art. 21 (Para 1)
