JUDGMENT B. Mukerji, J. - This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Moradabad recommending that a conviction made by Sri Balwant Singh, Magistrate Ist Class, of the applicant be set aside. 2. It appears that the applicant was charged with having sold a bag of cement for Rs. 8/ - when the control price for a bag of cement was about Rs. 4/ -. The accused denied having made any such sale. As a matter of fact he said that he had no cement in his possession which he could possibly have sold on that date. 3. The case was tried summarily by the Magistrate and I must say that the trial of the case was conducted in a most unsatisfactory manner. There was no proper charge in the case. The accused appears to have been told that the offence which he had committed was an offence u/s "4/7 Control Act". It should have been known to the Magistrate that there is no such thing as Section "4/7 Control Act" under which a person could have been charged. The Magistrate in his explanation has said as follows about this aspect of the matter: The mistake that in place of Essential Supplies Act, Control Act has been mentioned on record has been a technical one. Although there has been this technical mistake, the accused person was explained the charge against him clearly by me in the Court. 4. I fail to see how the learned Magistrate calls this mistake a technical mistake. I also fail to see how, if the Magistrate had made a mistake in regard to the offence with which he was charging an accused he could have possibly explained to him the charge correctly. 5. The learned Magistrate seems to be labouring under a misapprehension in regard to his powers in respect of summary trials. He seems to think that in cases which are tried summarily he can commit any number of mistakes of procedure and get away with it by saying that these are only technical mistakes and these could not possibly lead to a miscarriage of justice. He seems to think that in cases which are tried summarily he can commit any number of mistakes of procedure and get away with it by saying that these are only technical mistakes and these could not possibly lead to a miscarriage of justice. The learned Magistrate should know that it is not for him to express an opinion as to whether or not there has been a miscarriage of justice by an irregularity or defect of procedure or some such similar matter but it is for the superior Court before which the matter subsequently goes to see to it. 6. I have had occasion to see the performance of this learned Magistrate in another case and I was then constrained to say that the explanation which the Magistrate offered was an improper explanation and the same had been couched in improper language I have had a similar feeling in regard to the explanation that has been offered by the Magistrate in this case. In his explanation the Magistrate has said: These two points raised by the learned Sessions judge do not help revision as provided u/s 537 Cr.P.C., unless miscarriage of justice is made out of the proceedings. 7. The learned Magistrate seems to be under the impression that Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a charter to him to commit all kinds of irregularities during the course of a trial. I consider it necessary to correct the misapprehension under which the learned Magistrate seems to be labouring. I should also like to point out that an explanation which a Magistrate is required to submit is not meant to give the Magistrate an opportunity to criticise the judgment of the superior Court. A Magistrate while Submitting an explanation is expected to use dignified and courteous language. 8. Offences under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, (Act No. XXIV of 1946) could be tried summarily by a Magistrate or a bench of Magistrates empowered for the time being to try in a summary way the offences specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only on an application made by the prosecution to try the case summarily, in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 262 to 265 of the said Code. This case was tried summarily but it appears that there was no application on behalf of the prosecution for trying this case summarily. The learned Magistrate in his explanation says that the prosecution had made an oral request to try this case summarily. The Magistrate again says that the fact that he has tried it summarily on an oral request is only a technical defect and according to him "does not envisage any miscarriage of justice." I am surprised at the attitude that this learned Magistrate takes in regard to the procedural law of the land. It is a pity that he, a stipendiary Magistrate of the State who has to administer a good part of the criminal law of the land a law which puts in jeopardy the life and liberty of a citizen, should have such a supercilious attitude towards that law. 9. I am satisfied that the trial of this case has been conducted in an improper manner. The irregularities which have been pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge are many and material and I cannot therefore say that even with such irregularities and improprieties there was no prejudice to the accused or that there was no miscarriage of justice. I cannot therefore uphold this conviction and I must act on the recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge and set aside the conviction of the applicant made by Sri Balwant Singh, Magistrate Ist Class, on the 26th of September 1950. The applicant was charged with a petty offence and I do not consider that the circumstance of the case require that the applicant should be retired for the same offence again he has already had enough punishment. 10. I direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of the Uttar Pradesh for his information.