GORACHAND DAS Vs. NITAI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Midnapore against an order of acquittal passed at a summary trial by Sri T. S. Dutta, Magistrate, First Glass, Midnapore.

(2.) In all my experience as a Judge and as a lawyer I have never come across a reference of this description. The learned Judge seems to have no idea of the provisions relating to summary trials, nor does he seem to have any idea of the fact that acquittals are not to be lightly interfered with. The accused were tried for having committed offences punishable under the Cattle-trespass Act and for causing hurt. The offences were obviously trivial and I find it difficult to understand why in a trivial case like this the time of this Court should be wasted by a reference made for setting aside an order of acquittal. The main complaint of the learned Judge is that the Magistrate has not written a judgment when acquitting the accused. If he had taken the trouble to understand the provisions of Section 263, Criminal P. C., he would have seen that in a case of acquittal no judgment is required to be written when a case is tried summarily. Learned advocate appearing in support of the reference referred me to the provisions of Section 264 of the Code, and he says that that section lays upon the Court a duty to record a judgment. This contention is equally futile. Section 264 applies only when the accused is found guilty. It has no application to a case where the accused is acquitted. There are other trivial defects mentioned by the learned Judge as to the omission of the Magistrate to mention certain dates. I think it would be sheer waste of time to deal with these trivial objections.

(3.) I uphold the decision of the learned Magistrate and (reject ?) this Reference.