Patna High Court
Padarath Kurmi vs Emperor on 6 June, 1922
Equivalent citations: 72IND. CAS.893, AIR 1922 PATNA 552
JUDGMENT John Bucknill, J.
1. This is an application in Criminal Revision Jurisdiction made on behalf of one Padarath Kurmi under the following circumstances.
2. The applicant was charged with having assaulted an old woman who is said to be his mother-in-law. There is no doubt that there had been some dispute between the complainant and the accused. The accused was tried before the Deputy Magistrate of Arrah and was convicted of an offence, against the provisions of Section 352, Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to one week's rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 15 There is no doubt that the evidence for the prosecution as to the assault was believed by the Deputy Magistrate but, at the same time, there was also a certain amount of evidence which was adduced by witnesses for the defence to which, however, the Deputy Magistrate did not attach very much importance. The accused appealed from this conviction to the District Magistrate of Shahabad who, however, summarily dismissed the appeal purporting to act presumably under the provisions of Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I think that it is not unimportant to observe that, apparently, the District Magistrate did not call for the records of the case; he heard the Mukhtear for the appellant and after simply stating that there was no point of law and that the lower Court had discussed the facts of the case in reasonable detail he dismissed the appeal summarily. I am not altogether satisfied that, in acting in this way, the District Magistrate was right. There is no doubt that the powers which are capable of being exercised under Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised with considerable caution and where there has been a dispute as to facts and where the credibility of witnesses for the prosecution has been, even though it may be not very successfully, impugned, it is proper for the Appellate Court to call for the records and look at the evidence. It is also desirable, as has been pointed out by the High Courts in this country, that in dismissing an appeal summarily, although it is not necessity for the Appellate Tribunal which is thus acting to compile any claborcie judgment, some indications should be recorded which may be a guide to any Court which may be asked to act in revisional jurisdiction. One assumes from what is written by the District Magistrate here that he thought that the matter was of so trifling a character that it was not necessary to send for the records, and one may infer that on reading the decision of the Deputy Magistrate, he thought that the facts of the esse had been set out sufficiently to justify the conclusion to which the Deputy Magistrate had come. I think that, on the whole, it would be more satisfactory in this case if appeal is referred back for re-hearing. The records should be sent for by the District Magistrate who should himself consider the incidents of the evidence and come to whatever decision he may think fit when he has addressed his mind thereto.