ORDER
Ramaswami, J.
1. This is a criminal revision case filed against the conviction and sentence of the 1st Class Bench of Magistrates in B.C. No. 6242 of 1950 on the file of the Court of the 1st Class Bench of Magistrates, Guntur. The learned advocate for the petitioner has taken. a proper point that, the judgment of the Bench Court does not conform to the provisions of Section 263, Criminal P. C. and that the trial thereby stands vitiated. I am entirely in agreement with the contention of the learned advocate because this summary trial being not only summary is also horribly summary. The record does not show the nature of the accusation against the accused, the substance of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from which we can infer why the magistrates believed the evidence and the defence of the accused, if any, which is not stated. On the other hand the judgment consists of a rigmarole to the following effect:
“The accused pleaded not guilty. They are summarily tried. They are reported as bad characters of notorious and nefarious type with previous convictions in the Stationary Sub-Magistrate’s Court for gaming and they were under police custody because they were entangled in the murder case of one late Raithan Bee alias Baudaji ………… Both theaccused are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 45 in default to seven days Rule I. The
accused shall be bound over under Section 106, Criminal P.C. to be of good behaviour for a period of six months under their own surety for a sum of Rs. 100 and they shall furnish another surety each for a Hue sum. Sd. Purniah, Vice-president. On the left hand side the following persons have signed:
Venkateswaralu, P.B. Paul, K. Subba Rao, Chebroulu Ramaswami (in Telugu) and D. Venkatakrishnayya.”
2. I need not point out that the reasoning
of this judgment is as bad as its English. There
is utter absence of any reasons for convicting
the accused. On the other hand a lot of hear
say and inadmissible evidence has been introduced which is totally irrelevant. for the
purpose of this conclusion. In fact it is one
of those cases contemplated by a long line of
decisions of the various High Courts wherein
it is laid that the Bench of Magistrates should
be carefully watched to see that they pay their
attention to their responsible judicial work,
hear the parties in a fair and dispassionate
manner and bring to bear their minds upon the
question at issue and give sufficient reasons so
that the revisional court may be able to follow
whether they have weighed the evidence of the
case, applied their minds to the ingredients of
the evidence and come to the proper conclusion. Such an unsatisfactory judgment naturally vitiates the trial as has been laid down
in — ‘Papu Chetti v. Kesavalu Chetti’, 1933
Mad WN 736 (A); — ‘Anantachar v. Emperor’,
1937 Mad WN 328 (B) and — In Re: Govindan
Thimma Chetty’, AIR 1942 Mad 669 (C). It
may be that on account of inexperience these
magistrates have disposed of this case in such
a horrible fashion and it is, therefore, impressed upon the learned District Magistrate
that he should put them in the way of writing
judgments properly as otherwise the liberty of
the subject will be in great jeopardy in the
area of Guntur. The learned District Magistrate may be usefully referred to the decision
in — ‘AIR 1942 Mad 669 (C)’, where what
reasons must be stated in the judgment of this
kind are fully indicated. The net result of this
analysis of the evidence is that the conviction
and sentence of the Bench Court must be set
aside and are hereby set aside and the accused
would be tried by a stipendary magistrate of
Guntur to be nominated by the District Magistrate of Guntur.