In Re: Bonthu Appadu and Others

Horwill, J.—The petitioners were convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Vizianagaram of an offence punishable u/s 147, Indian

Penal Code, and ordered to pay fines of Rs. 25 each. They took the matter in appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Vizianagaram, who

heard the appeal on 3rd January, 1941. He made notes of the arguments, and those notes show that the arguments were completed on that day.

The case was then adjourned to 6th January, 1941, at Vizianagaram. Of what happened on 6th January, 1941, one cannot be quite sure; but the

docket, which was written by a clerk, notes that the conviction and sentence were confirmed on 6th January, 1941. There was no note however

by the Magistrate that he disposed of the case on 6th January, 1941, and nothing in his own hand to indicate what he did on that day. The affidavit

of the pleader is to the effect that arguments were heard on 6th January, 1941, but that is not consistent with the entries made by the Magistrate

himself. However that may be, no judgment was ever written. About six weeks later, the Magistrate was taken ill and eventually died. When the

petitioners applied for copies of the judgment they were told that no judgment existed. The petitioners have therefore filed a petition praying that

the matter be reheard.

The learned Public Prosecutor has shown me a case, II Weir 439, to the effect that disregard of the provisions of Section 367 of the Criminal

Procedure Code is irregular but not illegal. I doubt whether that is the present opinion of this Court, but however that may be, there was

undoubtedly a grave irregularity. It is even more essential that an appellate Court should give reasons for its orders than that the trial Court should

do so; for in the latter case the accused has a remedy by way of appeal before a tribunal which has to consider questions of fact as well as of law.

In revision, on the other hand, findings of fact are ordinarily accepted. Moreover, in this case there is some doubt whether the judgment (even if we

overlook the lack of a written judgment) was really pronounced on 6th January, 1941. If it had been, one would have expected a note by the

Judge to that effect. As this Court must be satisfied that the appeal was properly disposed of as well as heard, the interests of justice require that

the appeal should be heard again.

The order of the appellate Court confirming the conviction and sentence is therefore set aside and the appeal remanded to the Joint Magistrate

of Vizianagaram for rehearing and fresh disposal.