JUDGMENT :

WALSH, A.C.J. and BANERJI, J.:— In our opinion Mr. Justice Boys has taken the right view in this matter, and, so far as this High Court is concerned, we declare that the provisions of sections 263 and 264, in cases in which these sections are applicable, are not controlled by section 355, Code of Criminal Procedure. To attempt to apply them really introduces confusion and amounts to amending the Act. It seems to us that the matter is really quite clear, and has only been complicated by the decision in the case of Satish Chandra Mitra v. Manmatha Nath Mitra, (1920) I.L.R., 48 Calc., 280., with which we are unable to agree. Summary trials are dealt with in two different categories. Cases under section 263 are unappealable. In such cases the Magistrate need not record the evidence, and he is only bound to enter the particulars mentioned in the section. In section 264 he has to do a little more, namely, record a judgement embodying the substance of the evidence. There is nothing in that section compelling him to record, the evidence. Some people have the gift of remembering, repeating and embodying in a judgement evidence which they have heard, without the assistance of any n