AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
18 paragraphs · 345 wordsKunhamed 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 u/s 447, Indian Penal Code, 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 therefore:
From the evidence, both documentary and oral, I find a clear case has been made out u/s 447, Indian Penal Code, against the accused, and,
finding him guilty, I sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 10 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ten 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 conviction. In Govindan v. Emperor 1943 M.W.N. (Cri.) 134, Horwill J.,
observed:
A brief statement of their reasons would necessitate at least a short summary of what the prosecution witnesses had 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.