Judgment :- 1. This reference is by the District Magistrate, Trivandrum in respect of the disposal of C. C. 936 of 1959 by the City Second Class Magistrate, Trivandrum. 2. The two accused in the case, Gangadharan and his wife were charge sheeted by the Excise Inspector, Kazhakkootam Range, for the offences punishable under Ss. 8 (1) (a) and 8 (1) (b) of the Travancore-Cochin Prohibition Act (Act XIII of 1950). The case against them was that they were in possession of liquor and wash for the manufacture of liquor. A bottle containing 6 ozs. of arrack is alleged to have been recovered from the person of accused 2 and a pot containing wash and other materials for the manufacture of arrack from the kitchen of the house occupied by accused 1 and 2. The charge was laid in court on 2-9-1959 and the 2nd accused presented herself in court simultaneously. The same day the 2nd accused was convicted as she pleaded guilty to the charge and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and fifteen days. No charge was framed against accused 1 on the ground that no prima facie case has been made out against him. 3. The laconic order passed by the learned Magistrate reads as follows: "Filed C. C. 936/59. A2 present. Particulars of charge read over. She admits offence and shows no cause against conviction. Found guilty. Convicted and sentenced to undergo S.1 for one month and 15 days. No prima facie case appears against Al. No action against Al. M. Os.1 and 2 confiscated." On receipt of the calendar, the First Class Magistrate called for the City Magistrate's explanation and his explanation is equally vague and intriguing. It is extracted below: - "The charge is for the possession of illicit arrack and wash. Therefore the particulars of the charge were read to the accused when they appeared in Court. It was a mistake to have passed separate proceedings for charging section of the Excise charge. It shall he observed hereafter". His explanation appears to suggest that the charge-sheet disclosed only an offence under S.8 (1) (a), that is, illicit possession of arrack (a case triable as a summons case) and hence he adopted the procedure laid down under S.242 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Notice of the reference was given to the accused but they have not entered appearance. 5. 4. Notice of the reference was given to the accused but they have not entered appearance. 5. The charge was laid by the Excise Inspector under both S.8 (1) (a) and (b) of the Prohibition Act. The offence under S.8 (1) (a) is triable as a summons case and that under 8(1) (b) as a warrant case and therefore the procedure to be adopted in this case is that applicable to warrant case and prescribed in Chapter XXI of the Criminal Procedure Code. The conviction of the 2nd accused is bad as a charge can be framed against her under S.254 only when the offence appears proved. As observed by the learned District Magistrate in the order of reference, there is reason to doubt the voluntary nature of the plea of the 2nd accused who presented herself in court on the date the charge was laid. 6. The disposal of the case against the 1st accused is equally irregular. The Magistrate refused to proceed with the case against him on the ground that no case has been made out against him. If the charge-sheet which was the sole basis of the order, did not disclose a prima facie case against the first accused then one is at a loss to know how the learned Magistrate found his way to convict accused 2 on the basis of the self-same charge. Moreover having accepted the charge and treated it as one under both S.8 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act the Magistrate, under S.252 of the Code, has necessarily to hear the complainant and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and not summarily dispose of the case against the accused. 7. In the result, the reference made by the District Magistrate is accepted and the order passed by the City Magistrate is quashed. The case will be proceeded with according to law. Reference accepted.