Lalit Mohan Saha vs Chunder Mohan Roy

In this case the Magistrate has convicted the accused on a summary trial of criminal intimidation, but he has nowhere stated in any proceedings in the summary trial what constituted that criminal intimidation. It is impossible for us to say, sitting as a Court of Revision, that the facts which the Magistrate found to be proved would properly constitute that offence. It seems to us also that the importance of this case, having regard to the concluding remarks of the Magistrate in convicting the accused, has been unduly magnified. Instead of directing the matter to be tried summarily, as it has been in the end, it was subjected by the District Magistrate, in the first instance, to an enquiry by another Magistrate and, after that Magistrate had recorded the evidence of certain witnesses and found that, in his opinion, a prima facie case had been established, the summary trial commenced. Now, that was not the object of the legislature in directing that certain offences should be tried by a summary procedure. Then again, the Magistrate''s proceedings are not such as to shew that ho properly appreciated the character of the offence. It seems to us that, in the terms of the rule, he has not acted in accordance with sec. 263 (h) Cr. P. C. inasmuch as he has not set out a brief statement of the reasons for the conviction arrived at, because he has not shewn the facts which he found upon which that conviction is based. The proceedings of Magistrates, in a summary trial have, on more than one occasion, been required by this Court to shew the reasons for convicting the accused, so that the High Court on revision may judge whether there are sufficient materials in support of the conviction. The conviction and sentence must accordingly be set aside, and the fine, if paid, refunded.