The court emphasized the importance of complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 342, Criminal P. C. and the need for a full and accurate statement of reasons for a conviction under Section 263, Criminal P. C.

( 1 ) ON a complaint petition filed by one Venkatamma who is examined as P. W. 2 in the case against the petitioners-accused, the learned Second Magistrate, Bangalore, directed the case to be taken on file and it was accordingly registered as C C No. 812 of 48 49. Amongst other things it was alleged in the complaint that the accused beat and kicked the complainant on 12 2-1949 at about 7. 30 p. m. The learned Magistrate tried the case summarily for an offence under Section 323, Penal Code, and found the accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 30 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six days. It is against this order the accused have come up in revision before this Court.

( 2 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners argued at the outset that the trial Magistrate having failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 342, Criminal P. C. , by note examining the accused after prosecution witnesses were further cross-examined by him and before they were called upon to enter their defence, the judgment of the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside. But it is held by a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 29 Mys. C. C. R. 241, that an accused person should be examined generally on the case after the whole of evidence produced in support of the prosecution has been taken by the Court : provided this is done, it is not obligatory on the Court to further examine him after any prosecution witnesses whose evidence has been already taken, are recalled at the instance of the accused and cross examined are re-examined and an omission to do so is neither an illegality which vitiates to trial nor an error or irregularity which requires to be cured under Section 537, Criminal P. C. I, therefore, fail to see any force in this contention.

( 3 ) IT was next urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the motive set up by the complainant for the assault on her by the accused was that the accused persons were backing up one Papiah who was a rival claimant for the very plot of land she had obtained from government, which matter she avers in her complaint is being fought out by the parties before the second Munsiff's Court, Bangalore. That there being nothing on record to corroborate the said statement, it is urged that the motive set up by the complainant can neither be accepted as true nor taken proved. There is of course nothing on record to corroborate the allegation made in the complaint petition. The learned counsel has next pointed that the Magistrate has come to a ready conclusion without ever attempting to discuss critically the evidence placed before him which if done would not have warranted such a decision as is arrived at by him. Though the offence was said to have been committed on 12th February 1949, the complaint petition was actually presented on 18th February 1949 and there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay of six days. It is again stated in complaint that she approached the police for redress and as the police did not move in the matter she was obliged to file the complaint before Court. No attempt is made either to summon the complaint petition filed before the Police or the Police Officer before whom she complained to speak to that effect. That would certainly have strengthened her case if only it were true. The notes of evidence recorded by the Magistrate discloses that the offences complained of was committed in the dark half of the month just before the New Moon day at about 7. 30 P. M. It would have been certainly a point for consideration whether it would be possible for anyone to identify properly the accused persons that committed the offence. The learned Magistrate has unfortunately not considered these aspects of the case in his judgment but has glibly believed what the prosecution witnesses have stated and has come to a finding without even attempting to give reason for the same which practice must be deprecated. 3a. A stil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document