ADAM AHMED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Dave the learned advocate for the appellant has pointed out that at the request of the accused during the course of the trial the learned Magistrate had inspected the place of incident and that he has kept no notes whatever about the same on the record of the case. According to him therefore he has violated the mandatory provisions contained in sec. 539B of too Criminal Procedure Code. on that basis he further urged that the defence of the accused is materially prejudiced and the appreciation of the evidence could not be made In proper manner by the learned Magistrate It appears no doubt true that an application was presented by the accused on 26-1-66 to the Court requesting the Court to take local inspection of the place of the incident and other place refereed to in the evidence. From the order passed there below it appears that the learned Magistrate granted that request and fixed 22-1-66 for going for local inspection. Prom the proceedings it appears that it was on 29-1-66 that the local Inspection of the site was taken and then he adjourned the case to 2-2-1966. The arguments in the case were heard on 9-2-66 and the judgment was thereafter delivered on 15-2-66 in the case. From the record and proceedings of this case it further appears clear that no notes of the local inspection made by the learned Magistrate have been kept on the record of this case. At the same time he has made no reference whatever about the same in his judgment. Now sec. 539B of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as under :

(2.) NOW It was after the local Inspection was made by the learned Magistrate that the matter was set down for argument and the arguments were heard. The learned advocate appearing for the accused in that Court made no request whatever to have the notes of inspection placed on record. Nor is there any material to show that the learned Magistrate has made use of any observation to his disadvantage in appreciating the evidence in the case. It is not suggested and at any rate it does not appear that no cross-examination was done of the witnesses as the local inspection was to be made. on the other hand the grievance of Mr. Dave is that the learned Magistrate has not at all chosen to appreciate the evidence and has given no reasons in coming to the conclusion that he arrived at in the case. According to him except narrating the facts in judgment no reasons have been given which led him to accept the evidence led by the prosecution and for coming to the conclusion that be did in the case. That criticism levelled by Mr. Dave cannot be said to be altogether without any force but that does not ill any way affect the decision in the case. At any rate I am not shown how the appreciation of evidence by the learned Magistrate has been so affected by reason of his not keeping notes of inspection made by him in the case. Appeal dismissed