P L D 1954 Sind 105 (PLP)

VELLANI, J.‑The applicant has come in revision from the dismissal of his appeal by Tyabji, C. J., for reasons which appear in Saleh Muhammad v. Crown (P L D 1952 Sind 57). The applicant was convicted of an offence under section 3 of the Hoarding and Blackmarketing Act (Central Act XXIX of 1948), and sentenced to six month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 and in default to further 3 months ' simple imprisonment. The point argued before us, is that Mr. Tobin, the Additional District Magistrate who authorised the complaint to be filed, did not have the power to do so under section 12 of the Act. Section 12 of the Act reads as follows : "

12. Power of Government as to prosecution. (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence of hoarding or dealing in the black market except upon a complaint in writing by or under the written authority of the Government. (2) The Government may by order direct that in case of trials other than trials before a Special judge the powers conferred upon it by sub‑section (1) shall in such circum stances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order, be exercised by District Magistrates ". The question raised is' whether the term 'District Magis trates in this context includes an Additional District Magistrate. By a notification dated 21st May 1949 under sub‑section (2) the Central Government delegated its powers to District Magis trate as well as Additional District Magistrates. It seems to us that the plural number in the term 'District Magistrates' in sub‑section (2) is' advisedly used. It is a general principle of construction which finds expression in section 13 (2) of the Central General Clauses Act 1897, that the singular includes the plural, and if the District Magistrate appointed under section 10 (1) Cr. P. C. alone was intended, then the use of the plural number in the term appears unnecessary. We must not, however, suppose that the plural was un necessarily used or that its use has no significance. On the other hand, section 10 Cr. P. C. contemplates two classes of District Magistrates, those appointed under subsection (1) and those appointed under subsection (2) and number of both of these two classes would be included in the plural number used. The use of the plural affects not only the number of persons but the two classes. We think the plural number was advisedly used to include both these classes. Under section 10 (I) Cr. P. C. there shall be a District Magistrate, and under section 10 (2) Cr. P. C. there may be an Additional District Magistrate with the same powers and under section 10 (3) Cr. P. C. an Additional District Magistrate is to be deemed to be for certain purposes, but it is not really in fact, subordinate to the District Magistrate. We can see no ‑validity in the argument that for the purposes of section 12 (2) of the Act, an Additional District Magistrate is not included in the expression District Magistrates'. We have been referred to Prabulal Ramlal Kabra v. Emperor (I L R 1944 Nag. 144‑A I R (1944) Nag. 84.) but it is not necessary to deal with that case here. Its correctness has been doubted, and the case distinguished by Pollock, J. in Emperor v. Abdul Hussain Sullemanji Bohra (A I R 1946 Nag. 305‑223 1 C 629.) and by Tyabji, C. J., in the judgment in appeal reported in Salleh Muhammad v. The Crown (supra). It has again been dis tinguished in Fateh Muhammad alias Hakimdin v. The Crown (P L D 1951 Lah. 78.2) by Munir, C. J., and Rahman J. That case arose in circumstances similar to those in this case and the conclusion of the Lahore High Court was the same as that of Tyabji C. J. For these reasons we dismiss the revision application. The applicant has been in Jail for 4 months and 15 days and had but few days more to serve before the expiry of his sentence of six month's rigorous imprisonment. He has already paid the fine of Rs.

100. In these circumstances we alter the sentence of imprisonment to the imprisonment already undergone: A. H. Sentence reduced.