Govindaswami Padayachi vs Kaliaperumal Padayachi

Kunhammad Kutti, J.—This revision arises out of an order passed by the Special First Class Magistrate, Chidambaram, in Summary Trial

Case No. 614 of 1962 on his file. The charge in that case was one under S. 447, I.P.C., for criminal trespass. The learned Magistrate appears to

have examined four witnesses on the side of the prosecution and an equal number on the side of the defence. But he disposed of the case with the

following sentence under the heading:

Finding and in the case of conviction, a brief statement of the reasons therefor: ""From the evidence, both documentary and oral, I find a clear case

has been made out tinder S. 447, I.P.C. against the accused, and finding him guilty, I sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 10 i/d to suffer S.I., for 10

days.

It is not seriously contended, either by the Public Prosecutor or by the Counsel appearing for the complainant, that this disposal satisfies the

requirements of law, namely, giving brief statement of the reasons for con-conviction. In Govindan v. Emperor (1942) M.W.N. Crl. 134 Horwill,

J. observed:

A brief statement of their reasons would necessitate at least a short summary of what the prosecution witnesses has said, so as to indicate that the

evidence had made out the case with which the accused had been charged, and also an indication that the Magistrates had believed that evidence.

If there was defence evidence, it would further perhaps be necessary to say why they preferred the evidence of the prosecution to that of the

defence.

I am in respectful agreement with these observations. In the case before me, four witnesses had been examined on the side of the defence but

there is hardly any whisper about the evidence of these witnesses. I am satisfied that in the circumstances, the order convicting, the petitioner

cannot be upheld. It is unnecessary, having regard to the nature of the charge that the case should be sent back for fresh trial. The petitioner is,

therefore, acquitted.