STATE Vs. KAMPU SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision case arises out of a reference made under Section 341 of the Cr. P.C. by the Second Additional District Munsiff -Magistrate, Mangalore. This pertains to accused No. 16 in Preliminary Register Case No. 4 of 1961 on the file of the said Magistrate. Accused No. 4 of 1961 on the file of the said Magistrate. Accused No. 16, along with some of the other accused in that case, has been charged for an offence punishable under section 395 of the I.P.C. and has been committed to take his trial, along with those accused, before the Court of Sessions at Mangalore. After so committing the said accused to take his trial before the Court of Session, the said committing Magistrate has made the present reference under section 341 of the Cr. P.C.

(2.) SHRI M.K. Sreenivasa Iyengar, the learned High Court Government Pleader has appeared for the State; the 16th accused, though served with notice, has not appeared before this Court either in person or through counsel.

(3.) THE attitude taken by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade II, referred to above, was in no way helpful to the Court for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the 16th accused cannot be made to understand the proceedings of the Court. But, that did not in any way lessen the responsibility of the learned Magistrate to make every reasonable attempt to find out whether it was not possible to make the 16th accused understand the proceedings of the Court. Apart from merely observing the demeanour and the conduct of the 16th accused and questioning him with reference to certain pieces of evidence, the learned Magistrate does not seem to have made any attempt or taken any steps to make the 16th accused understand the proceedings of the Court. No endeavour seems to have been made to find out as to whether it was not possible for any of the relations or friends of the 16th accused to communicate with him by signs and as to whether it would both be possible for such a person to interpret the proceedings of the Court, by means of such signs to the 16th accused. As has been pointed out by the High Court of Bombay in the case of the State v. Radhamal, AIR 1960 Bom 526,