STATE OF MYSORE Vs. B MAHABALA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Criminal Appeals by the State are against two separate orders of acquittal passed by the First Class Magistrate, Virajpet, in S. T. R. 571 of 1961 and S. T. R. 1464 of 1961 respectively and involve the determination of the same question, viz., whether the failure of the Magistrate to give reasons for his order of acquittal in a case tried summarily under Section 264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounts to an illegality which vitiates the trial, hence they have been heard together and this judgment will govern both of them.

(2.) In S. T. R. 571 of 1961 the charge against accused was that he was found in possession of two bottles which contained 16 drams of arrack without a permit and had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1) (a) of the Coorg Probihition Act. In S. T. R. 1464 of 1961 the accusation against the respondent was that he was found moving in the streets of Virajpet having consumed arrack and in a state of intoxication on 24-6-1961 and had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Coorg Prohibition Act. The learned Magistrate tried both these cases summarily under Section 264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He recorded the substance of the evidence of the witnesses examined for the prosecution and also the statements made by the respondents. On the basis of the materials placed on record by the prosecution in each of these cases the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that no case had been made out against the respondents. Accordingly he acquitted the respondents. In the appropriate column meant for recording the finding, viz., column "h" of the summary form, the learned Magistrate passed a one word order "acquitted", in both these cases. It is the legality and correctness of this one word order that is challenged in these appeals.

(3.) It is urged by Mr. Shankara Chetty the learned Additional Assistant Advocate General that the learned Magistrate was bound to write a judgment giving the reasons for acquitting the accused in each of these cases and that the order of acquittal passed without assigning reasons is illegal and is liable to be set aside. He urged that in a case tried summarily under Section 264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as in other cases tried regularly, the trial Magistrate is bound to record a judgment assigning reasons for his order of acquittal as the State has a right to prefer an appeal against all acquittals under Section 417 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His argument was to the effect that as in all cases of acquittal the State has a right to prefer an appeal under Section 417 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is bound to write a judgment embodying the substance of the evidence even in cases tried summarily to enable the State to formulate the grounds of attack against the judgment in the memorandum filed into the appellate Court.