In re: Mani

Nainar Sundaram, J.—This revision is by the accused in C.C. No. 3481 of 1977 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate,

Madurantakam. He was convicted for an offence under S. 32S, I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment till the raising of the Court and was

further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. As against the conviction and sentence by

the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, he preferred an appeal C.A. No. 88 of 1978 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chenglapattu, and the

lower appellate court had dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence.

Miss V.G. Parvathavarthini, learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from vehemently urging certain points on merits, for the purpose of setting

aside the conviction and sentence passed by the two Courts below, points out that the lower appellate Court has not applied its mind at all and has

not considered the case on merits within the meaning of S. 386 of the Crl. P.C. The learned counsel took me through the judgment of the lower

appellate Court and I find that the grievance of the learned counsel is well-founded. The lower appellate Court has not discussed the evidence of

the witnesses either of the prosecution or of the defence. The fallowing extract from the judgment of the lower appellate Court clearly indicates that

it has not independently applied its mind to adjudicate upon the correctness or otherwise of the judgment appealed against

Such an appraisal for the purpose of adjudication could be done only with reference to the evidence, oral and documentary and other relevant

materials on the record. A bare reference to P. Ws. without even discus-slag the gist of their evidence is net what is required of an appellate court

under S. 3S6, Crl. P.C. There should be a conscious application of the mind of the Court to the evidence, oral and documentary on record,

Independent assessment of the same, and adjudication over the same for the purpose of disposal of the appeal. In the instant case, there is a

glaring omission of this judicial application of mind enjoined upon the lower appellate Court and this compels me to interfers in revision. The

Supreme Court in Shyam Deo Pandey and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, delineated the manner and method in which an appellate Court should

dispose of the appeal as enjoined by the statutory provision. The following passage occurring In the said judgment is very elucidative:

It is not necessary to deal exhaustively with the connotation of the expression ""after perusing such record"" occurring in S. 432 (1). That will depend

upon the nature of the order or judgment appealed against as well as the point or points that are taken before the Appellate Court. But one thing is

clear. There must be a clear indication in the judgment or order of the Appellate Court that it has applied Its judicial mind to the particular appeal

with which it was dealing. Such an indication will be available when the Appeal, late Court has considered the material on records which means not

only the judgment and petition of appeal, but also the other relevant materials. The Appellate Court is bound to have looked into the judgment of

the lower Court appealed against. The petition of appeal must have also been looked into to know the nature of the attack that is made against the

judgment. There will be other materials on record and they will have to be perused by the appellate Court. The nature of such perusal to be

indicated in the Appellate judgment may also differ under different circumstances.

Obviously, there has been no conformity with the above principle by the lower appellate Court. Nothing appears from its judgment that there has

been an independent reappraisal of the evidence on record. Accordingly, this revision is allowed, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is set

aside and the appeal will stand remitted back to the file of the lower appellate Court for it to dispose it of in accordance with law.