STATE Vs. ANJANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 12 of 1956 in the following circumstances:

(2.) The accused Anjani was put on his trial for an offence under Section 436 of thy Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he intentionally committed mischief by setting file to the dwelling house (hut) belonging to one Poojamma in A.K. Hatti attached to Thimmasandra village, Nelamangala Taluk on 24-5-1956, before the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The case was tried with the aid of Jury. The Jury returned an unanimous verdict of not guilty. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge disagreed with the verdict of the jury. He was of the opinion that the accused was guilty End has therefore made this reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to this Court for such orders as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

(3.) It may at once be stated that the reference made by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge is not a proper reference as the letter of the learned Judge does not set out the grounds of opinion of the Judge. It is doubtless that a reference made under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be so complete and self-contained that it ought not to be necessary for this Court to refer to the evidence or charge to the Jury or to the order-sheet for passing suitable orders. In the letter of reference the learned Judge ought to have stated the facts of the case, the Verdict of the Jury and also the ground or grounds on which he differed from the verdict of the Jury and found it necessary in the interests of justice to submit the case to this Court for suitable orders. He should have categorically stated what material portions of the evidence he believes to be true, his opinion about the credibility of witnesses examined in the case and his reasons for arriving at his conclusions so as to enable this Court to appreciate and give due weight to them. He was bound to disclose the reasons for his Opinion in as clear a manner as he would have done if the case had not been a jury case and he had to write out a judgment in the case. The order of reference of the learned Judge is abnormally short and is as follows: