High Courts(1900) 07 CAL CK 0008

Dina Nath Talukdar vs Jogendra Narain Majumdar

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 16 July 1900

CASE NUMBER
Rev. No. 419 of 1900

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 143 words
1.

The Magistrate admits that, in this summary trial, he has omitted to record the reasons for which he convicted the accused. The law requires that such reasons shall be recorded and, indeed, the proceedings in a summary trial are necessarily so brief that without such an expression of opinion on the part of the Magistrate who convicts an accused, it would be quite impossible to learn whether justice has been done. The omission of the Magistrate in this instance is fatal to the case, for the evidence recorded in the summary trial is not such as would enable us to deal with the case on the merits. The conviction and sentence must, therefore, be set aside, and the fine, if paid, must be refunded. We leave it open to the parties, if so advised, to move the Magistrate for a fresh trial.