Mir Ghulam Hussain vs Sk. Hapan

R.L. Narasimhan, C.J.—This is a petition, in revision, against the summary trial and conviction of that petitioner u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and u/s 323, I.P.C. and the sentences of fine passed on him. for those offences by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Bhadralt.

The main point of law urged by Mr. Rahim for the petitioner is that the substance of the deposition witnesses has not been recorded in the mariner required by Section 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He invited my attention to the fact that though the evidence of P.W. 1 was recorded in some detail the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate while recording the evidence, in the examination in chief of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 merely noted that the corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1.

But I notice that their evidence, in cross examination has been recorded in full. Again so far as P.W. 3 is concerned his examination-in-chief also is fairly complete and gives a clear picture of the Sub-stance of the allegations made by him in the petition of complete. Mr. Rahim srew my attention to the decition of the Bombay High Court reported in Krishna Nayar Ram Nayar Vs. State, but the record of evidence noticed by the learned Judges in that case appears to have been extremely scrappy and not of the type found in the present case. There, the examination-in-chief consisted of a. mere statement that the witnesses corroborated some other witnesses, and the cross examination also consisted of some stray notes. Hence their lordships of the Bombay High Court held that the substance of the evidence was not recorded in the manner required by law.

But here the statements of the main witnesses namely P.Ws. 1 and 3 have been recorded at some length especially in cross examination and similarly though the examination-in-chief of P.Ws. 3 and 4 is somewhat brief, the record of the cross-examination is complete. Under such circumstances I am not prepared to say that there was contravention of Section 264 Cr.P.C.

But the passing of two separate sentences of fine for the two offences u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and u/s 323, I.P.C. may not be appropriate in this case, especially as no medical certificate has been filed to prove the nature of the injuries. I therefore modify the order of the lower court as follows: The conviction of the petitioner u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and the sentence of fine of Rs. 20/- passed on him for that offence are maintained. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. His conviction u/s 323 I.P.C. also is maintained but no separate sentence need be passed for that offence and the sentence of line passed on him for that offence is set aside. The order for payment of compensation is also maintained. Subject to this modification in the sentence the revision petition is dismissed.