JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for revision of an appellate judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Hardoi, confirming a judgment of Mr. Muhammad Jamaluddin, a Magistrate of the First Class in the District of Hardoi, convicting the applicant, Onkar Singh and sentencing him for an offence under Section 19(d), Arms Act to pay a fine of Rs. 75 and further convicting him of an offence under Section 411, I.P.C., and. sentencing him to pay a further fine of Rs. 50. In default of payment of fine in each case, the accused applicant, Onkar Singh, was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. This application for revision was originally heard by a learned Judge of this Court sitting singly who by his order dated 2nd August 1934, referred it under Section 14(2), Oudh Courts Act, for decision by a Bench of two Judges in view of the fact that the application raised a question of law, on which there were divergent views of the High Courts in India. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as also the learned Assistant Government Advocate, and have taken time to consider the question of law raised in this revision before coming to our decision. It baa been strenuously argued before us that the learned trying Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Hardoi erred in law in not taking into consideration the fact that no question under Section 342, Criminal P.C., was put to the applicant about the delivery of the key of the cattle-shed, in which the alleged stolen gun lay concealed. We have carefully examined the record of the case framed by the learned Magistrate, We find that the trying Magistrate Mr. Jamil-ud-din examined the accused applicant Onkar Singh on 4th January 1934, after recording the examination-in-chief of three witnesses for the prosecution, who were cross-examined a few weeks later, on 19th January 1934, and 24th January 1934, after the charge sheet had been framed on 4th January 1934. The examination of the accused under Section 342, Criminal P.C., and recorded under Section 364, Criminal P.C., by the trying Magistrate was done in a most perfunctory manner. It runs as follows:

On 27th October, the gun (Ex. 1) was found in the southern kothari of my cattle-shed over the bhusa. The gun was not in my possession without a licence, nor was I in possession of it as stolen property, knowing it to be so. Soma bad characters planted the gun in my kothari, I shall produce defence.

2. It will be seen from a mere perusal of the statement of the accused, recorded by the trying Magistrate, that the imperative provisions of Section 342, Criminal P.C., have been completely violated. The latter portion of Sub-section (1) Section 342, Criminal P.C., lays down that the Court

shall for the purpose aforesaid, question him generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been claimed and before he is called on for his defence.

3. It is clear that in the present case the accused was not given an opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, nor was he questioned by the learned trial Magistrate after the witnesses for the prosecution had been examined, cross-examined and re-examined, but he was merely asked a tow general questions immediately after the examination, in-chief of the prosecution witnesses was over. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge have laid special emphasis on the fact that the key of the lock was produced by the accused Onkar Singh after removing it from his sacred thread or janeu, when a threat was held out to him that if be did not open the lock, a blacksmith would be sent for to break open that lock. Although this fact weighed with the learned trying Magistrate as well as with the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, yet no question was asked of the accused Onkar Singh as to what he had to say about the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on this point. The learned Counsel for the accused applicant ha