- (1.) This is a reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 12 of 1956 in the following circumstances:
(2.) The accused Anjani was put on his trial for an offence under Section 436 of thy Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he intentionally committed mischief by setting file to the dwelling house (hut) belonging to one Poojamma in A.K. Hatti attached to Thimmasandra village, Nelamangala Taluk on 24-5-1956, before the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The case was tried with the aid of Jury. The Jury returned an unanimous verdict of not guilty. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge disagreed with the verdict of the jury. He was of the opinion that the accused was guilty End has therefore made this reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to this Court for such orders as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
(3.) It may at once be stated that the reference made by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge is not a proper reference as the letter of the learned Judge does not set out the grounds of opinion of the Judge. It is doubtless that a reference made under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be so complete and self-contained that it ought not to be necessary for this Court to refer to the evidence or charge to the Jury or to the order-sheet for passing suitable orders. In the letter of reference the learned Judge ought to have stated the facts of the case, the Verdict of the Jury and also the ground or grounds on which he differed from the verdict of the Jury and found it necessary in the interests of justice to submit the case to this Court for suitable orders. He should have categorically stated what material portions of the evidence he believes to be true, his opinion about the credibility of witnesses examined in the case and his reasons for arriving at his conclusions so as to enable this Court to appreciate and give due weight to them. He was bound to disclose the reasons for his Opinion in as clear a manner as he would have done if the case had not been a jury case and he had to write out a judgment in the case. The order of reference of the learned Judge is abnormally short and is as follows: "I find no grounds to agree with the unanimous verdict of the Jury that the accused is not guilty. The charge delivered to the Jury warrants the verdict that the accused is guilty for offence under Section 436 I. P. C. I. therefore, disagree with the verdict for acquittal. The case in respect of the accused shall therefore be submitted to High Court under Section 307 Cr. P. C. for suitable orders." It is clear beyond doubt that the order of reference made by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions judge does not satisfy the requirements of the law. He has neither set out the facts of the case nor expressed his clear opinion as to the credibility of the witnesses and disclosed the grounds on which he holds that the verdict of the Jury is manifestly unreasonable. The result is, in the absence of the opinion of the learned Judge it is not possible for this Court to say that the verdict is against the weight of evidence without examining the evidence and the charge to the Jury. The verdict of the Jury, particularly when it is unanimous should not be dist rbed unless it can he demonstrated beyond a peradventure that it is manifestly perverse or unreasonable. Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to provide against a clear case of miscarriage of justice at the trial and is not meant for indiscriminate use of over-zealous judges to make references. This power must be sparingly used. It is only in cases where the judge thinks that it is absolutely necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court he must do so after recording the grounds of his opinion. It is highly regrettable that the learned Judge has not understood the scope of Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has made this imperfect reference to this Court.;