AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 187 wordsCoutts and Macpherson, JJ.—This is an application in revision in regard to an order of the Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur. The petitioners were convicted by the Sub-divisional Officer of Sitamarhi u/s 143, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 14 days'' Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20 each; one of the petitioners was also ordered to give security to keep the peace, u/s );">106, Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal to the Sessions Judge the convictions and sentences have been upheld.
The first point urged in support of this application is that the provisions of section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, have not been complied with inasmuch as the accused were not examined after the prosecution witnesses had been examined, cross-examined and re-examined. It appears that they filed written statements not only at that stage of the proceedings but after the defence witnesses had also been examined and cross-examined and discharged.
It is clear therefore that the accused have not been prejudiced and on this account there has been miscarriage of Justice. In these circumstances we see no reason to. interfere On this ground in revision.