JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, J. - This is an application in revision from an order dismissing the appeal of the accused and upholding his conviction and sentence u/s 454, I.P.C. The judgment of the appellate Court is as follows:

The case has been carefully triad, and after examining the evidence I am fully satisfied that Shanker, appellant, took part in the burglary. The appeal is dismissed.

2. This judgment, with the exception of giving a revisional Court an idea that the accused was charged with an offence of burglary, does not show anything more. The first point taken in revision is that this judgment is not in accordance with law inasmuch as it does not comply with the provisions of Section 367, Criminal P.C. That section requires that a judgment shall contain the point for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. The dismissal of the appeal was not a summary one u/s 421 to which case Section 367 would not have applied. The dismissal was after it had been admitted u/s 422. 8. 424 then made the provisions of Section 367 applicable.

3. The question whether the expression "I am satisfied that the accused took part in the offence" amounts to giving reasons for the decision is a difficult question to answer in the abstract. It is obvious that in simple cases where the facts are clear no further reason than that the evidence is accepted by the Judge may be strictly required. In complicated cases, however specially when there are more than one question, both of law and fact, arising a mere statement of this kind will have to be accepted with difficulty as amounting to a reason for the dismissal of the appeal.

4. In the present case the accused was put on his trial along with three other co-accused persons. He had not been named in the first information report and he was not arrested till a week after. The evidence against him consisted mainly of the confession of a co-accused Khairati who had pleaded guilty and the retracted confession of another co-accused Sita Ram. There were other witnesses also who deposed to having seen him at particular places near about the house where the burglary was committed, and in fact one of the witnesses deposed to having seen him on the roof of a house in that lane. There was also the evidence of one goldsmith that the accused after the burglary had gone to him to sell, certain ornaments which were similar in appearance to certain articles discovered from the custody of the confessing accused and produced in Court. As against this evidence the accused produced no less than 11 witnesses and his defence was fourfold.

5. In the first place, be proved that two or three weeks before his arrest he had been beaten by some of the constables of his police circle against whom he had complained to the Superintendent of Police and then ultimately filed a complaint in the criminal Court which was then sub judice. Ha produced medical evidence to show that the injuries on his person, and it was suggested on his behalf that the police officers had got him implicated in order to handicap him in the prosecution of his case and in order to have a revenge on him. He next tried to prove his enmity with Bhajja master who he suggested had helped the police in incriminating him. In the third place, he led evidence to establish his alibi, and, in the fourth place, he led evidence to show that the prosecution story that he was an associate of the other co-accused was untrue.

6. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge discussed the evidence in great detail and examined it carefully. He has devoted several type-written pages to the case for and against the accused. There was a further legal question as to whether when Khairati on the charge being read over to him had pleaded guilty the learned Assistant Sessions Judge acted properly in not convicting him there and then, but continuing a point trial and using his previous confession as evidence against Shanker also. In the memorandum of appeal filed before the learne