- (1.) JAISA and other eight applicants were summarily tried by Pandit Gopal Sahai Sharma, Magistrate Bandikui, for offences under sections 447, 323, 504 and 379 of the Penal Code. They have been convicted under the aforesaid sections and have been sentenced as below:- 1. A fine of Rs. 5/- each under sec. 447. 2. A fine of Rs. 5/- each under sec. 323. 3. A fine of Rs. 11/- each under sec. 379
(2.) THE applicants want in revision to the court of the Sessions Judge, Sawai Jaipur, and Gangapur, but their revision has been dismissed. THEy have now come in revision to this court. The only point that has been urged on behalf of the applicants by their Advocate Mr. C. L. Agarwal is that the judgment of the learned Magistrate is not in 'accordance with law and it does not appear therefrom how the learned Magistrate came to a finding that all the accused had committed various offences of which they have been convicted. My attention was directed to the provisions of sec. 236 (h) Cr. P. C. which provides that a Magistrate deciding a case summarily tried should give the finding, and in the case of a conviction, a brief statement of the reasons therefor. It was argued that the learned Magistrate has given only the finding but no statement of the reasons therefor as required by law. It was further argued that learned Magistrate has also not given the facts constituting the offence of which the applicants were charged nor of the offences of which they were convicted. On behalf of the opposite party it has been argued that the learned Magistrate has substantially complied with the provisions of sec. 263 (h), although he has not given elaborate reasons for the conviction. It was urged that the case was a petty case and the sentences are also very petty. Therefore, there were no grounds for interference in revision. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. A Magistrate invested with summary powers has certain privileges and, therefore, it is his duty to fully comply with the provisions laid down for a summary trial. The learned Magistrate is not bound to take down the evidence in detail, nor is he bound to keep the record of the evidence so taken. His judgment is, therefore, the only record in the case from which it might be found that the findings arrived at by him have been correctly arrived at or not. It is, therefore, his duty to give a brief summary of the evidence in the judgment. It is also his duty to. give the facts constituting the offence or offences with which the accused are charged. In the present case the learned Magistrate has not given any summary worth the name of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is not possible for this court to find out from the judgment what prosecution witnesses had stated and whether what they had stated constituted the offence or offences of which the applicants have been convicted. It is a case in which nine persons were charged. They were not charged under sec. 147 and therefore sec. 149 was not applied. They were also not charged of the various offences by virtue of sec. 34 of the Penal Code. They could therefore at best be responsible for their individual acts. The learned Magistrate has not shown which of the nine accused were responsible for the petty theft of which all the applicants have been convicted nor which of them caused hurt to the com-plainant. Under sec. 447 of the Penal Code it is necessary that the accused should enter into or upon property in the possession of another. It was therefore necessary for the learned Magistrate to give a summary of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from which this court might have been able to find out whether the property had been in possession of the complainant at the time when the alleged offence is said to have been committed. From the judgment, it appears that the accused raised some sort of plea about their bonafide claim and produced some evidence on that point. The summary of the defence evidence should also have, therefore, been given. It was held in A. I. R. 1930 Lah. 481 Alma Prakash vs. Emperor that though it is true that in summary trials the judgment need not be very long, yet it is the duty of the Magistrate to give a brief summary of the evidence & a concise statement of reasons if the trial ends in a conviction. These safeguards are essential so that in the case of revision, the High Court may have sufficient material for arriving at the conclusion as to whether the order of the Magistrate is right or wrong. Further, the Magistrate must give reasons which would show that there was evidence to prove the ingredients necessary to complete the offence of which the accused is convicted. Later on in A. I. R. 1934 Lah. 596, Abdul Rahman vs. Emperor, it was held by Shadilal C. J. that in the case of a summary trial, in which so little is recorded and, there-fore there is so little protection from without to the persons accused, against the risk of error, haste or inaccuracy, the scanty provisions of sec. 263 must be fully and strictly complied with in this sense, that the record must be sufficiently and exact and sufficiently full to enable the revisional court to say whether the law has been complied with or not on the point to be recorded. Three things viz. , the offence charged, the offence, if any, proved, and the reasons for convicting, must be recorded, and recorded in such a way as to enable the court of Revision to say, yes or no, from within the four corners of the record itself, whether the offence charged is an offence in point of law whether the offence proved is an offence in point of law, and whether the reasons for the conviction are good and sufficient reasons* The only thing that the learned Magistrate has said in his judgment is that the prosecution evidence is indepen-dent and believable. This is simply a finding and cannot be said to be a brief statement of the reasons for the finding. It is pity that the learned Sessions Judge di 1 not peruse with care the simple provisions of sec. 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the opposite party that because the sentence passed is very petty the case does not merit interference in revision. When it is found by this court that the Magistrate had not acted in confirmity with law and the result of it has been that the accused have been 'convicted and it is not possible for this court to check whether the conviction has been correctly recorded, it would not be just to dismiss the revision on the ground that the sentence is not heavy. In the two cases which I have referred to above, the sentences passed were very lenient, almost as lenient as in the present case, still their Lordships of the Lahore High Court interfered in revision finding that the provisions of sec. 263 were not complied with. The revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the applicants are set aside. The fines, if paid, shall be refunded. As the case is a very petty one and the applicants were under trial for several months in the learned Magistrate's court, I do not consider it necessary to order a retrial. . ;