SIDDAPPA Vs. PATEL SHIVAPPA
LAWS(KAR)-1966-7-15
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on July 07,1966

SIDDAPPA Appellant
VERSUS
PATEL SHIVAPPA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

KRUSHNA KUMAR MODI VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(ORI)-1975-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAK VS. FOOD INSPECTOR [LAWS(KER)-1990-2-42] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Second City Magistrate Mysore, convicting the petitioner (accused 3) for the offence under Section 448 I. P. C.. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 26. in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.
(2.)A complaint was filed against the petitioner and two others on 29-6-65 by Patel Shivappa (P W 4) alleging that they trespassed into his house and assaulted his wife Mahadevamma (P W 9). The case was taken up on file and summonses were issued against the accused persons. The accused appeared before the Court and were bound over. The complainant undertook to produce the witnesses. After some adjournments, the witnesses were examined on various dates. Finally on 10th April 1965 the case of the complainant was closed and posted to 16-12-65, for examination of the accused under Section 342 Cr. P. C. As the Court was engaged in hearing other cases on that day, the case was adjourned to 20-12-65. On that day the accused were examined under Section 342 Cr. P. C. Arguments were heard on the following day and the case was posted for judgment on 24-12-65. On that day, the Court passed the following order:
"Complainant by Sri TNS, present. All the accused by Sri N. G. A. 1 to 3 present. By oversight their plea was not recorded. Plea recorded A 1 to ft pleaded not guilty. Defence Advocate has nothing to add. Judgment by 28 12-."
The learned Magistrate acquitted A1 and A. 2 and convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 448 I. P. C. The correctness of this conviction is challenged in this revision petition.
(3.)Mr. Basavaltngappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code have not been followed in the trial in this case and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice The case was tried as a summons case under Section 242 Cr. P. C When the accused appeared, the particulars of the offence of which he was accused, should have been stated to him and he should have been asked to show cause why he should not be, convicted. Chapter 20 of the Code applies to the trial of summons cases. The trial of summons case begins when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate. Then the Magistrate should follow the provisions of Section 242 Cr. p. C. which are imperative. The procedure prescribed therein should strictly be followed and as soon as the accused person appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the substance of the charge against him must be stated to him and he must be asked to plead The principle that no man should be condemned unheard is perhaps the first and the most important principle relating to the mode of administering justice and in anv record of the essentials of a fair trial, it is the last essential which should he omitted.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.