Skip to content


Murat Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928All266
AppellantMurat Singh and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Cases Referred and Emperor v. Brijbasi Lal
Excerpt:
- - 76 (notes) that where a magistrate has omitted to record the plea of the accused, the conviction is bad. in my opinion the trial of the case under revision is vitiated by the magistrate's failure to comply with the provisions section 263, criminal p......of revision will be in a position to judge whether there are sufficient materials to support that conviction: vide empress v. mohan [1885] a.w.n. 213, empress v. lachman [1886] a.w.n. 181, empress v. mohammad hanif [1899] a.w.n. 81, and emperor v. brijbasi lal [1912] 10 a.l.j. 251. it has apparently also been held by the calcutta high court in 9 c.w.n. 76 (notes) that where a magistrate has omitted to record the plea of the accused, the conviction is bad. i have been unable to secure that ruling 9 c.w.n. 76 (notes) but it is quoted at p. 651 of sohani's code of criminal procedure, 11th edition. in my opinion the trial of the case under revision is vitiated by the magistrate's failure to comply with the provisions section 263, criminal p.c. the record will be sent to the hon'ble high.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Walsh, J.

1. This is an application in revision against the judgment of a Magistrate under which the applicants have been convicted in a summary trial under Sections 323 and 426, I.P.C.

2. The only pleas which can be entertained by me in revision are those embodied in paras. 4 and 5 of the application, which are to the effect that the provisions laid down under Section 263, Criminal P.C. were not followed in the Court below.

3. The learned Magistrate has not recorded the plea of the accused and his examination as required by Clause (g), Section 263, he has not given a brief statement of the reasons upon which his finding is based, as required by Clause (h); and he has not even recorded a finding that mischief was committed under Section 426, I.P.C. It is established that a Magistrate in trying a summary case in which no appeal lies must record his reasons for conviction in such a way that the Court of revision will be in a position to judge whether there are sufficient materials to support that conviction: vide Empress v. Mohan [1885] A.W.N. 213, Empress v. Lachman [1886] A.W.N. 181, Empress v. Mohammad Hanif [1899] A.W.N. 81, and Emperor v. Brijbasi Lal [1912] 10 A.L.J. 251. It has apparently also been held by the Calcutta High Court in 9 C.W.N. 76 (notes) that where a Magistrate has omitted to record the plea of the accused, the conviction is bad. I have been unable to secure that ruling 9 C.W.N. 76 (notes) but it is quoted at p. 651 of Sohani's Code of Criminal Procedure, 11th edition. In my opinion the trial of the case under revision is vitiated by the Magistrate's failure to comply with the provisions Section 263, Criminal P.C. The record will be sent to the Hon'ble High Court with a recommendation that the conviction and sentences be set aside and that, if the High Court think fit, a fresh trial be ordered. Before the case is sent to the High Court, the learned Magistrate will be given an opportunity to submit any statement which he may wish to make in support of his procedure.

Walsh, J.

4. I accept this reference, quash the conviction and direct the fines, if paid, to be returned.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //