GHANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Sessions Judge has found that the accused were the aggressors and that the defence story cannot be accepted for a moment. On this view, there is no scope for applying the rule laid down by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Parbhoo v. Emperor, AIR 1941 All 403 (PB) (A).

(2.) The main contention of Mr. M. H. Beg appearing for the applicants was that, the accused did not get a fair trial in this case. This contention is based on the following circumstances. Evidence was recorded by one Magistrate, Sri Ram Kumar. He was transferred from Muzaffarnagar, and was succeeded by Sri V. N. Tripathi. Sri Tripathi heard arguments, and pronounced judgment convicting the applicants. It has been urged that the trial was improper, inasmuch as Sri Tripathi decided the case without watching the demeanour of witnesses.

(3.) It was conceded that the procedure adopted by Sri Tripathi is permissible under Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as that provision stands now. But Mr. Beg argued that Section 350 of the Code in the present form is unconstitutional.