JAI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision filed on behalf of Jairam and Satyaram, who are own brothers and were convicted by the Bench Magistrates of Bhogaon, in the district of Mainpuri, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 452 and 323, I. P. C. , and each of them was sentenced to different terms of imprisonment and fine. On appeal, the Assistant Sessions Judge of Mainpuri set aside the conviction of the applicants under Section 147, I. P. C. but upheld their conviction under Sections 452 and 323 I. P. C. The applicants have now come up to this Court in revision.

(2.) ON behalf of the applicants, the first point urged in this revision is that the Bench Magistrates, who delivered the judgment, were not present on the Bench throughout the proceedings. A reference to the order sheets bears out this contention of the applicants' learned counsel. The case was transferred to the Bench Magistrates on the 21st January 1950. When this case was taken up by the Bench Magistrates on the 15th March 1950 the Magistrates present on that date were Dr. Janki Prasad Misra and Chaudhri Sheoraj Singh. On that date, the statement of certain witnesses were recorded and the other witnesses being absent the case was adjourned to the 5th April 1950. On the last mentioned date, only the Magistrate Dr. Janki Prasad Misra was present and chaudhri Sheoraj Singh, Magistrate was absent. The order-sheet of this date goes to show that as the quorum was not complete, the case was adjourned. The order-sheet also goes to show that the quorum prescribed for this Bench was of two magistrates. The case was then adjourned to April 20, 1950 and the case had to be adjourned to the 25th of April 1950 for want of a quorum. On the 25th April 1950, all the three magistrates who constituted the Bench namely Dr. Janki Prasad misra, Chaudhri Sheoraj Singh and Chaudhri Bijai Singh were present. Certain witnesses were produced and cross-examined and the case was adjourned for the recording of further evidence to the 10th May 1950. On the order-sheet, against the date 25th April 1950, there is a note showing that the accused persons did not claim a de novo trial, apparently in view of the fact that the constitution of the Bench had been changed.

(3.) ON the 10th May 1950, the case had to be adjourned for want of quorum to the 17th May 1950. On the last mentioned date again the case had to be adjourned for want of quorum. But it is to be noted that on this date Satyaram accused was absent and his absence was excused by an order made by Dr. Janki Prasad Misra who was present on the bench.