Back
1938 Supreme(Cal) 195
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Patterson, J.
Kali Charan Som - Appellant
Versus
Priya Nath Das - Respondent
Decided On : 08-03-1938
The Appellate Court has the duty to apply its mind afresh to the evidence and to form its own conclusion, embodying its conclusions and the reasons on which they are based in a considered judgment.
Headnote:
Appellate Court Judgment - Re-hearing Ordered
Fact of the Case:
The Court found that the judgment of the Court of Appeal did not comply with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code as it did not set forth the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for these decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the judgment of the Court of Appeal must be set aside as it was not in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Court has the duty to apply its mind afresh to the evidence and to form its own conclusion, embodying its conclusions and the reasons on which they are based in a considered judgment.
Issues: The main questions for decision were regarding the complainant's possession of the disputed land and the facts of the alleged occurrence. The Court of Appeal had recorded a clear finding on the possession but had not discussed the evidence. There was no finding and very little discussion of the evidence on the alleged occurrence.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment of the Court of Appeal did not comply with the provisions of Section 367 read with Section 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it did not set forth the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for these decisions.
Final Decision: The rule was made absolute, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside, and the appeal was ordered to be re-heard and disposed of according to law by the Sessions Judge of Khulna or by the Additional Sessions Judge of that District.
ORDER
Patterson, J. - This rule must be made absolute to this extent, that the judgment of the Court of Appeal must be set aside as not being in accordance with law. The main questions for decision were regarding the complainant's possession of the disputed land and regarding the facts of the alleged occurrence. On the first point, the Court of Appeal below has recorded a clear finding but has not discussed the evidence on which that finding is based. On the second point there is no finding and very little discussion of the evidence. It is in fact almost impossible to gather from the judgment of the Court of Appeal taken by itself, what the alleged occurrence was, and what was the real nature of the dispute between the parties. It is true that the judgment of the trial Court contains a fairly full discussion of the evidence, but that is not sufficient. It is the duty of the Appellate Court not merely to consider whether there are reasons for differing from the judgment of the trial Court, but to apply its mind afresh to the evidence and to form its own conclusion and to embody its conclusions and the reasons on which they are based, in a considered judgment which will if necessary bear the scrutiny of this Court. The judgment of the Court of Appeal below in the present case does not, in my opinion, comply with the provisions of Section 367 read with Section 424, Criminal P. C, inasmuch as it does not set forth the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for these decisions. In this connexion the attention of the learned Magistrate who heard the appeal is drawn to the observations of this Court in Inatulla Sarkar and Others Vs. Emperor, AIR 1924 Cal 618 and Bhola Nath Mullick v. Emperor (1903) 7 CWN 30. The rule is made absolute, the judgment of the Court of Appeal below is set aside and the appeal is ordered to be re-heard and disposed of according to law, either by the Sessions Judge of Khulna or by the Additional Sessions Judge of that District.
