Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.
1. The Rule must be made absolute. In this case the petition of complaint stated that the accused with others to the number of some 90 or 100 armed with swords and other deadly weapons came upon the complainant's land and, in spite of his remonstrances, threatened him and cut his paddy.
2. The Magistrate in examining the complainant recorded merely the fact that the complainant stated that his paddy had been cut by the persons accused by him, and he accordingly issued processes for the attendance of the accused to answer charges of offences under Sections 143 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, both of which offences are triable summarily. A summary trial was thereupon held and the accused has been convicted.
3. We have no doubt that on the facts before the Magistrate the offences complained of were not triable summarily. The petition of complaint discloses the commission of a much more serious offence than the offences for which the Magistrate has held a summary trial. The examination of the complainant, which has not been properly recorded, does not show that the offence so complained of was not committed. We must therefore hold that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction. The conviction and sentence are set aside. The Magistrate will proceed to hold a regular trial.