Damodar Das vs Emperor

Sultan Ahmad, J.—This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Cuttack, recommending that the conviction of the accused u/s 448 of the Indian Penal Code by the Deputy Magistrate be quashed. The trial was summary, but it appears to me that the order of the Deputy Magistrate does not comply with the provisions of Section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It must be remembered that the summary procedure provided for in Chapter XXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to become too summary. u/s 263 the Magistrate must give the reasons, though briefly, for justifying the conviction, The only reason that I find in the order that he has passed is that the accused is guilty u/s 417, If that were sufficient, then no other reasons justifying the conviction could possibly be given. Convictions are revisable by a Superior Court, and the Superior Court will always insist on having materials before it so that it may be in a position to say whether the conviction is proper or not. The main ingredient of Section 447 is that the trespass must be with the intention of annoying or insulting some one, or must be with the intention; of committing an offence. There is nothing in the order of the Magistrate which would show the intention of the accused. That not having been found, the conviction for criminal trespass is an impossibility. At the highest it can be said that the accused trespassed into the room of the Sub-Inspector, but that would be criminal trespass if the criminal intention of the accused is clearly found. Therefore, I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the conviction of the accused is not maintainable and, therefore, direst that the fine, if paid by himself, must be refunded, the conviction being quashed.