Mt. Thakuri vs Emperor

Wort, J.—This rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioner for an offence u/s 323 I.P.C. A small fine has been imposed on her. The only question is whether in the circumstances of the case the learned District Magistrate was entitled to dismiss the case summarily. That he had a right in law to dismiss it summarily is undoubted. Section 421, Criminal P.C. makes provision to that effect. The only point is whether in the circumstances the learned Magistrate has given sufficient reasons for thus dismissing the appeal.

The case of Thakur Sahu and Others Vs. Emperor, is relied upon where my brother James, J., lays down that it is necessary that the Magistrate dismissing a case summarily u/s 421 should state his reasons for thus dismissing it. I do not question the soundness of that decision. The real point in this case is whether the circumstances of the case and the nature of the appeal justified the learned Magistrate in making the statement which he made in dismissing the case summarily.

I have taken the opportunity of looking at the grounds of appeal and all I have to say is that I agree with the learned District Magistrate when he dismissed the appeal summarily. The notice of appeal apart from the question of the interested character of certain prosecution witnesses shows no ground at all upon which the learned Magistrate could entertain the appeal.

At the most all that the petitioner could urge was that certain statements of witnesses were rather improbable to use the expression used in the petition of appeal. In my judgment although an appellate Court should exercise its powers u/s 421 with great care this is not a case in which this Court could hold that the learned Magistrate had exercised his powers illegally or in any way irregularly. The fine in this case is a small one. The Magistrate was satisfied that the offence had been committed.

It seems to me therefore that there is no ground for interfering in this conviction. The rule is discharged.