NIRANJAN MONDAL Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was obtained against an order of conviction under sections 323/504 of the indian Penal Code with a sentence to pay fine of Rs. 25/- in respect of section 323 in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five days and a fine of rs. 25/- in respect of the conviction under section 504 I. P. C. , in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five days more passed by Shri K. Chowdhury, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, bolpur dated 29th October, 1976 in 'c' case No. 178 of 1975.

(2.) THE judgment is as follows:

(3.) HEARD Mr. Bag, Mr. Hossain and Mr. De appearing for the parties. The judgment is an example of what a judgment should not be. It is very unfortunate that the learned Magistrate has not adhered to the elementary principles in delivering the judgment the provisions of section 354, Criminal procedure Code make it incumbent that the judgment shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. In complete disregard of the same, the learned Magistrate has simply found some persons not guilty and some others guilty without assigning any reason. There is nothing to show that he considered the evidence before him or applied his mind. The supreme Court has also from time to time directed that all orders passed by the court should be speaking orders giving reasons for the decision after noting the point at issue. There must be expression to show that the court applied its mind to the facts and circumstances germane to the point in issue. The judgment should be self contained and should show that the learned magistrate independently applied his mind to the facts of the case and the evidence led therein by the parties and a consideration of the evidence leading to the conclusions to which the learned magistrate feels persuaded. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Budhia Vs. Chhetelal and others; reported in A. I. R. 1966 Rajasthan 122 and to the case of Sudhir chandra Jana V. Amulya Chandra misra and others, reported in 1969 (2)Crl. L. J. 1079.