Mangla Majhi vs Emperor

Jwala Prasad, J.—The principal contention of Mr. Roy, on behalf of the petitioner, is that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is not in accordance with law and that the appeal before it was, therefore, not legally disposed of.

The contention appears to me to be substantial. Section 424 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that a judgment of the Appellate Court should conform to the rule contained in Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 367, Chapter XXVI, lays down that a judgment shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.

The judgment of the learned Officiating District Magistrate is deficient in all the aforesaid points. It does not set out the fasts of the case and the point or points for determination; far less it gives any reason for dismissing the appeal. The learned District Magistrate simply says:

I agree with the lower Court that the opposite side is in cultivating possession of the Same,

It appears from the judgment of the trial Court as well as from the petition of appeal filed in the Court below that the case for the prosecution was challenged by the accused on various grounds. The same grounds were urged before me and presumably they must have been urged in the Court below. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Court below to deal with these grounds seriatim. The accused was entitled to an opinion of the Court below on the evidence in the case. This Court cannot ordinarily go into evidence, The accused is, therefore, seriously prejudiced by the manner in which the appeal has been treated by the lower Appellate Court.

Summary and stereotyped judgments like the one in question have been held by this Court in a number of cases to be illegal. I, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Court below and remand the appeal for rehearing and disposal in accordance with law.