1949 JTR(Cal) 92
1951 AIR(Cal) 308
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SEN GUPTA
GORACHAND DAS - Appellant
Versus
NITAI DAS - Respondent
Criminal Ref. 30 Of 1949
Decided On : JULY 6, 1949
In a case of acquittal at a summary trial, no judgment is required to be written as per the provisions of Section 263, Criminal P. C.
Act Referred :CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.264, S.263
Acquittal - Summary Trial - Interpretation of Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code
Fact of the Case:
The accused were tried for offenses under the Cattle-trespass Act and for causing hurt. The Sessions Judge made a reference against an order of acquittal passed at a summary trial, citing trivial defects in the judgment by the Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the decision of the learned Magistrate, emphasizing that in a case of acquittal at a summary trial, no judgment is required to be written as per the provisions of Section 263, Criminal P. C. The court also dismissed other trivial objections raised by the Sessions Judge.
Issues: Interpretation of provisions relating to summary trials, duty to record judgment, and trivial defects in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 263 and Section 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that no judgment is required to be written in a case of acquittal at a summary trial. The court also dismissed trivial defects in the judgment as not warranting interference.
Final Decision: The court rejected the reference made by the Sessions Judge and upheld the order of acquittal passed at the summary trial by the Magistrate.
Acquittal - Summary Trial - Interpretation of Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code
Fact of the Case:
The accused were tried for offenses under the Cattle-trespass Act and for causing hurt. The Sessions Judge made a reference against an order of acquittal passed at a summary trial, citing trivial defects in the judgment by the Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the decision of the learned Magistrate, emphasizing that in a case of acquittal at a summary trial, no judgment is required to be written as per the provisions of Section 263, Criminal P. C. The court also dismissed other trivial objections raised by the Sessions Judge.
Issues: Interpretation of provisions relating to summary trials, duty to record judgment, and trivial defects in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 263 and Section 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that no judgment is required to be written in a case of acquittal at a summary trial. The court also dismissed trivial defects in the judgment as not warranting interference.
Final Decision: The court rejected the reference made by the Sessions Judge and upheld the order of acquittal passed at the summary trial by the Magistrate.
MANISHI KUMAR DAS, SAMBHUNATH BANERJEE
SEN, J.
( 1 ) THIS is a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Midnapore against an order of acquittal passed at a summary trial by Sri T. S. Dutta, Magistrate, First Glass, Midnapore.
( 2 ) IN all my experience as a Judge and as a lawyer I have never come across a reference of this description. The learned Judge seems to have no idea of the provisions relating to summary trials, nor does he seem to have any idea of the fact that acquittals are not to be lightly interfered with. The accused were tried for having committed offences punishable under the Cattle-trespass Act and for causing hurt. The offences were obviously trivial and I find it difficult to understand why in a trivial case like this the time of this Court should be wasted by a reference made for setting aside an order of acquittal. The main complaint of the learned Judge is that the Magistrate has not written a judgment when acquitting the accused. If he had taken the trouble to understand the provisions of Section 263, Criminal P. C. , he would have seen that in a case of acquittal no judgment is required to be written when a case is tried summarily. Learned advocate appearing in support of the reference referred me to the provisions of Section 264 of the Code, and he says that that section lays upon the Court a duty to record a judgment. This contention is equally futile. Section 264 applies only when the accused is found guilty. It has no application to a case where the accused is acquitted. There are other trivial defects mentioned by the learned Judge as to the omission of the Magistrate to mention certain dates. I think it would be sheer waste of time to deal with these trivial objections.
( 3 ) I uphold the decision of the learned Magistrate and (reject ?) this Reference.