Dommarapati Pedda Venkatappa and Another vs Marupuri Latchanna

Horwill, J.—The petitioners were accused of an offence punishable u/s 326, I.P.C., but they were discharged by the Joint Magistrate of

Madanapalli before whom the case came up for trial. In revision, the District Magistrate of Chittoor set aside the order of discharge saying that ""the

evidence on record was sufficient to justify the framing of a charge. In view of it, I set aside the lower Court''s order of discharge and direct further

inquiry into the case."" The petitioners have brought the matter before this Court in revision on the ground that the Magistrate''s order is irregular, if

not illegal, and ought to be set aside on the ground that no reasons are given.

Chapter XXXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs references and revisions, says nothing about the giving of reasons for any

order passed. As in many places in the Code it is required of a Magistrate or Judge that reasons should be given for the order passed, it must be

taken that the Legislature did not intend to make it obligatory on revisional Courts to give reasons for their orders. Nevertheless, it is as a rule

desirable that reasons should be given, as was pointed out by Ayling, J., in Thirukonam Kuppachari v. Emperor 1914 M.W.N. 46. I am not

prepared to go as far as to say that the fact that no reasons are given is any indication that the Magistrate has not given the matter his full

consideration; but sometimes mistakes, even of fact, are made by revisional Courts. In order that this Court should exercise its revisional powers

satisfactorily,, it is desirable that it should know what was in the mind of the lower revisional Court when it passed its order. As the question

involved in these, proceedings is however a very simple one, I have no reason to think that the absence of reasons led to any injustice being done

to the petitioners.

The petition is dismissed.