AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Lakshmana Rao, J.—The Joint Magistrate reports that the petitioners demanded that the witnesses should be re-summoned and reheard but
non-compliance with the demand is not an irregularity which vitiates the trial, vide Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the
witnesses were further cross-examined before the Magistrate who decided the case. The petitioners cannot therefore be said to have been
prejudiced by the refusal of the Joint Magistrate to re-summon and re-hear the witnesses, and the conviction cannot be set aside on this ground,
vide Proviso (b) to Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No other ground was urged against the conviction nor is there any ground for
interference with it in revision. But the occurrence took place in 1935 and the trial was protracted. The hurt caused was trivial and it is unnecessary
to send the petitioners back to jail. The substantive sentence of imprisonment is therefore reduced to the period already undergone and other wise
this petition is dismissed.