ORDER
Jackson, J.
1. The point raised in this petition is whether substance of the evidence in Section 264 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be such a complete summary of the evidence as to afford material for appeal or merely a statement of the evidence which the Court thinks substantial. Considering that the Court is not required to record any evidence at all, and that, therefore, there is no test by which the substantiality of its record can be gauged, I think it is right to assume that the matter rests with the Court. This is the view taken by Devadoss, J., in In re Chockalinga Pandaram 109 Ind. Cas. 897 : 28 L.W. 394 : A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 597 : 29 Cr. L.J. 635 : 55 M.L.J. 117 : 10 A.I. Cr. Rule 271. In Urudin Sheikh Adam v. Emperor 112 Ind. Cas. 221 : 29 Cr. L.J. 1005 : 30 Bom. L.R. 954 : A.I.R. 1928 Bom. 433 the substance of the defence evidence was not even attempted to be given. In the circumstances I am not prepared to interfere. Where a case is hotly contested it is questionable whether a Magistrate is well-advised to try it summarily.
2. The petition is dismissed.