P.D. Shamdasani vs Sir H.P. Mody on 29 November, 1943
23. With respect, the view taken in -- 'D'Souza v. Emperor (F)' and -- 'Shamdasani v. H.P. Mody (G)', as to the construction of Sub-section (4) of Section 362, is more in consonance with the language of Sub-section (4) than the view taken by Shah J. in -- 'Naran Velji v. Ranjitsingh (A)'. It is a more logical view and the one which does no violence to the words of Sub-section (4) which are perfectly plain and clear and present no difficulty of construction. If the Legislature, for clarifying the position which was not so clear as Section 362 stood before its amendment in 1923, deliberately enacted Sub-section (4) laying down in terms that in cases other than those specified in Sub-section (1) of the section, it shall not be necessary for a Presidency Magistrate to record evidence, the High Court cannot compel a Presidency Magistrate to record evidence in any type of non-appealable cases upon the ground that in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, it might have the opportunity of scrutinising the evidence and doing justice, so that justice may not only be done, but may also be seen to have been done.