Sharma, J.—Jaisa and other eight applicants were summarily tried by Pandit Gopal Sahai Sharma, Magistrate Bandikui, for offences under sections 447, 323, 504 and 379 of the Penal Code. They have been convicted under the aforesaid sections and have been sentenced as below:-

1. A fine of Rs. 5/- each under sec. 447.

2. A fine of Rs. 5/- each under sec. 323.

3. A fine of Rs.11/- each under sec. 379

2. The applicants want in revision to the court of the Sessions Judge, Sawai Jaipur, and Gangapur, but their revision has been dismissed. They have now come in revision to this court.

3. The only point that has been urged on behalf of the applicants by their Advocate Mr. C. L. Agarwal is that the judgment of the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law and it does not appear therefrom how the learned Magistrate came to a finding that all the accused had committed various offences of which they have been convicted. My attention was directed to the provisions of sec.236 (h) Cr.P.C. which provides that a Magistrate deciding a case summarily tried should give the finding, and in the case of a conviction, a brief statement of the reasons therefor. It was argued that the learned Magistrate has given only the finding but no statement of the reasons therefor as required by law. It was further argued that learned Magistrate has also not given the facts constituting the offence of which the applicants were charged nor of the offences of which they were convicted.

4. On behalf of the opposite party it has been argued that the learned Magistrate has substantially complied with the provisions of sec. 263(h), although he has not given elaborate reasons for the conviction. It was urged that the case was a petty case and the sentences are also very petty. Therefore, there were no grounds for interference in revision.

5. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. A Magistrate invested with summary powers has certain privileges and, therefore, it is his duty to fully comply with the provisions laid down for a summary trial. The learned Magistrate is not bound to take down the evidence in detail, nor is he bound to keep the record of the evidence so taken. His judgment is, therefore, the only record in the case from which it might be found that the findings arrived at by him have been correctly arrived at or not. It is, therefore, his duty to give a brief summary of the evidence in the judgment. It is also his duty to. give the facts constituting the offence or offences with which the accused are charged. In the present case the learned Magistrate has not given any summary worth the name of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is not possible for this court to find out from the judgment what prosecution witnesses had stated and whether what they had stated constituted the offence or offences of which the applicants have been convicted. It is a case in which nine persons were charged. They were not charged under sec. 147 and therefore sec. 149 was not applied. They were also not charged of the various offences by virtue of sec. 34 of the Penal Code. They could therefore at best be responsible for their individual acts. The learned Magistrate has not shown which of the nine accused were responsible for the petty theft of which all the applicants have been convicted nor which of them caused hurt to the com-plainant. Under sec. 447 of the Penal Code it is necessary that the accused should enter into or upon property in the possession of another. It was therefore necessary for the learned Magistrate to give a summary of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from which this court might have been able to find out whether the property had been in possession of the complainant at the time when the alleged offence is said to have been committed. From the judgment, it appears that the accused raised some sort of plea about their bonafide claim and produced some evidence on that point. The summary of the defence evidence should also h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document