Back
1925 Supreme(Oudh) 24
HIGH COURT OF OUDH
Dalal, J.C.
Kallu Bari - Appellant
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 01-06-1925
JUDGMENT
Dalal, J C - There is no force in this application for revision. The trial was summary. Section 264, Cr. P.C. provides for such a trial where an appeal lies. That section lays down: "In every case tried summarily by a Magistrate or Bench in which an appeal lies, such Magistrate or Bench shall, before passing sentence, record a judgment embodying the sub-stance of the evidence and also the particulars mentioned in Section 263. Such judgment shall be the only record in cases coming within this section."
2. In face of these direct provisions of the law it is difficult to understand the argument of the learned Counsel that there ought to be a charge and also notes of the evidence of witnesses. I am the more surprised when the learned Counsel was able to produce a judgment of a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in support of his contention [Natabbar Khan v. Emperor A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 63]. What I believe is that the learned Judges in that case omitted to look at the provisions of Section 264, Cr.P.C.and were under the impression that Ch. XXII of the Cr.P.C. provides only for cases where there was no appeal and contained no directions as to cases in which an appeal lay. The provisions of Section 264 are entirely ignored in the judgment of the Bench, With all respect such a defective judgment cannot receive any consideration. A procedure is definitely laid down by law and that procedure was followed by the trial Court. I dismiss this application. If the applicant is on bail he shall surrender to undergo the balance of his sentence.
