Sundaram Chetty, J.

1. This is a petition by the accused 1 to 3 against the conviction and sentence of fine passed by the First Class Bench at Guntur. The charge against these accused was under Sections 504 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from the merits of the case, one objection that is taken against the legality of the conviction is, in my opinion, sufficient to set it aside. It is clear from the register of summary trials maintained by the aforesaid Bench, that the judgment has in fact been signed only by two of the three Magistrates who heard and decided the case, the other having only initialed it. The mandatory provision in Section 265 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to the effect, that "a judgment shall be signed by each member of the Bench present taking part in the proceedings." There is no definition of the word "sign in the Criminal Procedure Code. The word "signing" had been interpreted in some judicial decisions and that meaning can be safely adopted for purposes of the present case. In the two decisions of the Calcutta High Court, namely, Nirmal Chunder Bandopadhya v. Saratmoni Debyd (1898) I.L.R. 25 C. 911 at 915 and Mahabarsha, Bankapore v. The Secret