https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292404 Where a prior conviction under the Bengal Excise Act exposed the accused to enhanced punishment exceeding six months, the Magistrate was required to follow warrant-case procedure rather than summons-case procedure. The decisive factor was the possible sentence applicable from the outset, not merely the ordinary classification of the offence. Because the previous conviction was disclosed before trial began, the trial court should have treated the matter as a warrant case. Conducting the case as a summons case was a substantial illegality, presumed to prejudice the accused, and the defect was not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The conviction and sentence were therefore quashed and a retrial before another Magistrate was directed. en-us Wed, 18 Aug 1937 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:42:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292404 Where a prior conviction under the Bengal Excise Act exposed the accused to enhanced punishment exceeding six months, the Magistrate was required to follow warrant-case procedure rather than summons-case procedure. The decisive factor was the possible sentence applicable from the outset, not merely the ordinary classification of the offence. Because the previous conviction was disclosed before trial began, the trial court should have treated the matter as a warrant case. Conducting the case as a summons case was a substantial illegality, presumed to prejudice the accused, and the defect was not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The conviction and sentence were therefore quashed and a retrial before another Magistrate was directed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Aug 1937 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292404