Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned counsel for the Municipality, however, argued that even though formally the second petitioner was not made an accused in the complaint e was questioned about the sale, he admitted the sale, his only 'defence was one of having a warranty which cannot legally stand and he is not, in any way, prejudiced by the failure to show him as an accused in the complaint, especially when sanction-was accorded to prosecute him. Learned counsel referred me to Section 351, Cr. P. C. It is true that under Section 351 a Magistrate who has already taken cognizance of a case on a complaint or police report can join as a co-accused in the case any person attending the Court who seems to be implicated in the offence-under trial. Rut that procedure has not been followed by the trial Magistrate who alone is authorised to do so. There can be no doubt that the Magistrate, in this case, did not proceed under Section 351. He does not himself purport to act under that section and there is-no reason why I should ascribe to him the intention, of proceeding under the special procedure of Section 351 unless there are clear indications that he did so. No notice of such action being pursued has been given, to the second petitioner. It is too late in revision now, to contend that even though the second petitioner \vas not shown as an accused in the complaint the Magistrate did act under Section 351 and can find the second petitioner guilty and convict him and sentence him. The conviction of the second petitioner has also to be set aside. I must, however, point out that the sentence that had been awarded to the second petitioner was grossly inadequate.