KUNJIKKOYA Vs. NOOHUKUNJU IBRAHIM KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been found guilty and convicted of the offence punishable under S.323 IPC. The case was tried summarily by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Karunagapally and being a summons case the procedure laid down for summons case was followed. When the accused appeared the particulars of the offence were explained to them and they were asked to show cause why they should not be convicted. The accused pleaded not guilty. Witnesses were then examined for the prosecution. Besides the evidence of Pw. 1, there was the evidence of three other eye witnesses Pws. 2 to 4. The accused examined no witnesses on their side. On a consideration of the prosecution evidence the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted them. Aggrieved with the order this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel rightly refrained from canvassing the correctness of the findings of fact, realising that the scope of the exercise of the revisional powers of this court is very limited. The only point that was argued and which arises for decision is whether S.342 Cr. P.C., would apply to the trial of summons cases and whether the failure to question the accused under S.342 Cr. P.C., would vitiate the entire proceedings. There is conflict of judicial opinion as to whether S.342 would apply to the trial of summons cases.

(3.) Even otherwise there is ample authority for the position that a failure to comply with the terms of S.342 is only an irregularity and will not vitiate the entire trial unless prejudice has been caused to the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy me that any prejudice has been caused. The conviction and sentence are confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed.