KALKAI Vs. TULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Lahar, under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the accused had cut the crop standing in his field and that they also let loose their cattle in the fields of the complainant, causing damage to the tune of Rs.200. This case was tried by the learned Magistrate summarily. He recorded the statement of the complainant and one of his witnesses, and, also that of a defence witness, but without recording any finding acquitted the accused.

(2.) ACCORDING to Section 263(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate trying a case summarily must record a finding. But no finding has been recorded in this case. In Janki Rai and Anr. v. Emperor, 51 I. C. 207 the Patna High Court has observed that where there is no discussion and not even any mention of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and the Magistrate merely wrote in one sentence that the accused were entitled to acquittal, it was not a judgment in the eye of law and that the acquittal should be set aside.

(3.) IN result, I set aside the order of acquittal and send the case back to the learned trial Court with a direction to record a finding and to proceed according to law.