In Re: Dyta Seetharamayya

Devadoss, J.—This is an application to revise the order of the First Glass Bench Magistrate of Bapatla. Two of the Magistrates found the

accused guilty u/s 352, Indian Penal Code, but the Chairman of the Bench wrote a dissenting judgment holding that the accused was not guilty. No

reasons were given for finding the accused guilty and, therefore, there is no judgment as required by law, I think, the conviction ought to be set

aside and seeing it is a petty ease, it is Hot worth while sending the ease back for a retrial. The fine, if paid, will be refunded. I must here indicate

my view, that, in cases wherever the Chairman of the Bench Magistrates is opposed to the majority and where he is not prepared to write a

judgment for the majority, one of the Magistrates ought to be asked to write the judgment. Otherwise the Chairman, if he happens to differ from

the majority would write only his view of the case, whether it be for conviction or acquittal; and the rest of the Magistrates would not be in a

position to place on paper their reasons for their opinion. In such cases the rule ought to be that, where the Chairman is opposed to the majority of

the Bench, one of the majority ought to be asked to write the judgment and that should form part of the record so that the Court in revision may

know the reasons for the opinion of the majority.