ABDUL SHAKOOR Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, recommending that the conviction and sentence of Abdul Shakoor and Bashir for various offences under the Motor Vehicles Act may be set aside and either the case be remanded for fresh trial or they be acquitted of the charges preferred against them.

(2.) THE case of Abdul Shakoor and Bashir was tried by the Magistrate summarily. The learned Sessions Judge has pointed out in his order of reference that in this summary trial the Magistrate did not comply with the requirements of Section 263, Criminal Procedure Code, and that the judgment does not amount to a judgment at all so that the conviction of these two persons cannot be upheld. I entirely agree with the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge. The record of the summary proceedings prepared by the Magistrate shows that he only mentioned the sections under which the persons had been prosecuted. He did not anywhere mention the particulars of those offences. The law requires facts constituting those offences to be recorded. The Magistrate committed the second illegality of recording a joint statement of the two accused whereas he should have made separate record of the statement of each accused. Finally he did not comply with the provisions of Clause (h) of Section 263 which requires that in the case of a conviction the record must contain a brief statement of the reasons therefor. In this case the record prepared by the Magistrate merely contains two sentences purporting to contain the statement made by one B.K. Chaturvedi, examined as a prosecution witness and one sentence purporting to contain the evidence of Harish Chandra defence witness. Thereafter the Magistrate proceeded to say that no offence was made out under Section 79 (8)/123, Motor Vehicles Act and acquitted the two accused of this charge. Thereafter, he merely mentioned that the accused had been previously convicted and proceeded to pass sentence on them for the other charges for which the accused had been prosecuted. This judgment was really no judgment. He did not even give the facts which were proved to show that these offences had been committed by the accused nor did he give any reasons why he held these facts to be proved. Such a judgment is clearly, vitiated and has to be set aside. The same view was taken in the case of King -Emperor v. Dalchand, 1940 ALJ 154 : (AIR 1940 All 195 : 41 Cr LJ 498). The learned Magistrate in his explanation has given elaborate reasons why he held the accused to be guilty. If he had taken the elementary care of putting down those reasons when he wrote the judgment convicting the accused such a reference might have become unnecessary. Obviously considering that no appeal lay the learned Magistrate thought that he could safely ignore all the provisions of the law which was totally unjustified.

(3.) ON the record forming part of the trial there is no evidence at all which would justify the conviction of each of the two accused for any offence whatsoever.