learned judge rejected the revision petition with these cryptic remarks Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The revision petition was admitted for hearing and numberice issued to the respondent but when the matter came up for hearing before Raju J., the.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 29, 1966 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.
P.C. after making an enquiry under Ch.
43 of 1967.
XIV Pt.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
291 of 1966.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J The appellant was tried and companyvicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, 1st Court, Broach under s. 55 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.
100/ in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three weeks.
L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar for the respondent.
K. Puri, for the appellant.
In his revision petition before the High Court of Gujarat, the principal companytention taken by him was that the learned magistrate was number companypetent to take companynizance of the case against him as there was numbercomplaint as required by s. 72 of the Act.
In appeal that companyviction was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Broach.
