High CourtsSingle Bench(1964) 02 MAD CK 0006

Govindaswami Padayachi vs Kaliaperumal Padayachi

Madras High Court · Decided on 17 February 1964 · Citation: (1964) ILR (Mad) 429

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kunhamed Kutti, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Case No. 421 of 1963

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

18 paragraphs · 345 words

Kunhamed Kutti J.

1.

This revision arises out of an order passed by the Special First-class Magistrate, Chidambaram, in Summary Trial Case No. 614 of 1962 on his

file. The charge in that case was one u/s 447, Indian Penal Code, for criminal trespass. The learned Magistrate appears to have examined four

witnesses on the side of the prosecution and an equal number on the side of the defence. But he disposed of the case with the following sentence

under the heading Finding and in the case of conviction, a brief statement of the reasons therefore:

From the evidence, both documentary and oral, I find a clear case has been made out u/s 447, Indian Penal Code, against the accused, and,

finding him guilty, I sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 10 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days.

2.

It is not seriously contended, either by the Public Prosecutor or by the Counsel appearing for the complainant, that this disposal satisfies the

requirements of law, namely, giving brief statement of the reasons for conviction. In Govindan v. Emperor 1943 M.W.N. (Cri.) 134, Horwill J.,

observed:

A brief statement of their reasons would necessitate at least a short summary of what the prosecution witnesses had said, so as to indicate that the

evidence had made out the case with which the accused had been charged, and also an indication that the magistrates had believed that evidence.

If there was defence evidence, it would further perhaps be necessary to say why they preferred the evidence of the prosecution to that of the

defence.

3.

I am in respectful agreement with these observations.

4.

In the case before me, four witnesses had been examined on the side of the defence, but there is hardly any whisper about the evidence of these

witnesses. I am satisfied that, in the circumstances, the order convicting the Petitioner cannot be upheld. It is unnecessary, having regard to the

nature of the charge, that the case should be sent back for fresh trial. The Petitioner is, therefore, acquitted.