1. The applicant was prosecuted for an offence under sections 115 and 116 of the Municipal Ordinance, 1960. The learned Magistrate tried the case by following summary procedure. The applicant did not plead guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
100. The revision application against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant raised several grounds before me but I confined myself to a few of them which will dispose of this revision application. The first ground taken by him is that the learned Magistrate had not examined any evidence to prove that the applicant had made the additions and alterations but he simply based his conclusion on the statement of the prosecutor who was directed to inspect the site. I find considerable force in this contention. The order of the learned Magistrate consists of only two lines and it reads as under: "The prosecutor was directed to inspect the site. He has confirmed that alteration has been made by the accused."
3. It is clear from this order that no other witness was examined. It is difficult to understand how a conviction can be based on the mere inspection of a site. * The second ground that was taken is that the applicant was not given an opportunity to lead his defence. Neither the impugned order nor the record shows that any such opportunity was allowed to the applicant. Consequently a serious illegality was committed and this vitiates the trial.
4. In the circumstances, I allow the revision application and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the applicant and remand the case for retrial by a Magistrate other than the