MOBA MARING AND ORS. Vs. PARHAT ANGBA MARING AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two petitions against the convictions and sentences of the respective petitioners under Section 428 I.P.C. The Magistrate convicted the respective petitioners and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 60/ - jointly in each of the cases. But in the appeals tiled by the respective petitioners, this irregularity was corrected and the convictions were confirmed, and separate tines were imposed on each of the petitioners.

(2.) THE facts relating to the two revision petitions are more or less similar. The respective petitioners in each of the cases were alleged to have killed a pig each of the respective respondents at about 1 -00 p.m. on 12 -9 -1960. The respective respondents filed separate complaints before the Magistrate on 13 -9 -1960. The Magistrate did not examine the respective complainants on oath in either of the complaints but sent the complaints for report by the Police. In both the cases, the Police reported that the fact of the killing of the pigs by the respective petitioners was true, but that it appeared to have been done because, the respective respondents cut trees from the village forest reserve and the killing was a sort of fine in accordance with the tribal custom and hence the dispute was of a civil nature. On receipt of the Police reports, the Magistrate dealt with the cases as if he was dealing with private complaints and directed the issue of process to the accused persons after realising the necessary fees from the complainants. He then proceeded with the cases in accordance with the procedure for warrant cases prescribed under Section 252 Cr. P. C. He examined two witnesses in each of the cases and then he framed the charge under Section 428 I.P.C. against the respective accused. Then prosecution witnesses were examined and he examined the accused under Section 342 Cr. P. C. and the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, he examined 1 D. W. in each of the cases. Then he proceeded under Sec. 540, Cr. P. C and examined two Court witnesses in each of the cases and afterwards he again examined the accused persons in respect of the evidence given by the Court witnesses and thereafter convicted and sentenced the accused persons by separate judgments pronounced on the same day.

(3.) THESE questions of law have been taken up by the petitioners for the first time in revision, I find that neither in the Magistrate's Court nor in the appeals were these irregularities pointed out. On the other hand, I find from the order sheets of the Magistrate dated 27 -3 -1961 in both the cases, that the Advocates for the complainants as well as the accused were heard by the Magistrate and that the charge under Section 428 I.P.C. was framed as agreed by both the counsel after two witnesses were examined under Section 252 Cr. P. C. Thus, the procedure adopted by the Magistrate does not appear to have been questioned in the Magistrate's Court nor in the appellate Court. Under such circumstances, I cannot seriously hear arguments regarding the irregularity of procedure unless, it is shown to me that any such irregularity has seriously prejudiced the petitioners in the trial conducted by the Magistrate.