The court held that the Magistrate had failed to properly examine the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had also failed to ask the accused whether he wished to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses as required by Section 256 of the Code.

Weston, J.

1. The applicant one Gurbachari Singh was convicted by a Magistrate first class, Amritsar, under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. The date of the conviction is 24th May 1951. He went in appeal but his conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, the sentence being reduced to nine months rigorous imprisonment. He then filed the present revision petition on the 28th of October. During the period since his conviction he has been in jail.

2. The facts of the case are that sometime about the beginning of January 1951 the accused had worked for a short period in a handloom factory of one Parkash Chand at Amritsar. There is some rather vague evidence that for a period, either before or after his employment, the accused had slept at the factory of Parkash Chand. On the night of the 31st of January a theft took place, in the factory when property consisting of a radio set, pieces of cloth and bundles of yarn stolen. A report was made by Parkash Chand the following morning to the Police and in this report the articles stolen were stated. The report did not say that anyone was suspected. Later, it appears the accused and also one Bachan Singh were suspected, and on the 4th of February 1951 the accused was seen by Parkash Chand near a cinema at which the accused is said to have been there working. Sub-Inspector Raghbir Singh was informed. He came and the accused was caught and questioned. Some statement is said to have been made by the accused and the accused then took the police, Parkash Chand and other persons who had been called to join in the investigation to a house, the lock of which the accused opened witli a key, and in the house the accused produced from unuer a charpoy covered with a cloth the stolen radio set, some pieces of cloth and bundles of yarn which were identified as part of those which had been stolen.

3. The accused denied commission of the offence. He called witnesses for the purpose of showing that the house had been allotted not to him but to his father Bhagat Singh with whom he was on bad terms, and that he (the accused) was living in another house. The learned Magisrate accepted the prosecution story and convicted him.

4. On examination of the record there have come to light certain material defects in the procedure which has been followed fay the Magistrate. The examination of the accused before the charge was framed consisted of five questions. The first was merely accusation of commission of the offence to which the accused answered "No". The second was an omnibus question which I reproduce: "Q. Did you on 4-2-51 while in custody of police make statement that you have kept radio Ex. P. 1, thans Ex. P. 4 and suttar Ex. P. 5 in your house and then lead the police to your house, opened the lock with the key Ex. p. 2 produced by you and radio Ex. p. 1, thans Ex. p. 4, suttar Ex. P. 5 were recqvered covered by khes Ex. P. 6 under charpoy in your residential house at your pointing out?" The third question was an inquiry whether the radio, thans and suttar belonged to him to which the accused answered "No". The fourth question was simply -- "Q. Why this case against you?" to which the answer was "Due to enmity". There was a further residuary question -- "Q. Anything else to say?" to which the accused answered that he was innocent.

5. The second of these questions was a grossly improper question to be asked of any accused. It contained an inquiry first as to statements said to have been made secondly as to taking the police party to a particular house, thirdly as to opening the lock of that house with a particular key produced by the accused, fourthly as to the recovery of articles placed or concealed in a particular place and fifthly an inquiry or assertion that the house was the accuseds residential house. (It is quite impossible for any accused person to give a satisfactory and comprehensive answer to a question of this so