NINGTHOUJAM Vs. MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Manipur, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction under Section 323, I.P.C. passed by the First Class Magistrate, Bishenpur - Shri M. Nabakumar Singh and against the sentence of three weeks' R.I. imposed on him.

(2.) THERE were two accused persons in the criminal case and one was acquitted by the Magistrate. The case against the petitioner was that on 15.8.1959 he assaulted one Jugol Singh when the latter went for taking fish from his Loos and caused a bleeding injury. The Magistrate Shri Nabakumar Singh, examined 6 P.Ws. between 13.10.1959 and 20.11.1959 before framing the charge and he adjourned the case to 16.12.1959 for the examination of the accused. On 16.12.1959, he questioned the accused persons in detail. One is unable to understand the purpose of such detailed examination at that stage of the case even before the Magistrate had decided whether to frame a charge against the accused persons. If one reads the questions put by the Magistrate and the answers elicited from the accused one would find that the examination of the accused by the Magistrate amounted to a stiff cross -examination and that the Magistrate did not put to the accused the evidence given by the P.Ws. against them. The Magistrate should have realised that the prosecution had to make out a prima facie case and that any questioning of the accused at that stage should not be intended to help the prosecution in that effort. The Magistrate also must be guarded that such questioning, which of course, is permitted under Section 253, Cri.P.C. should not in any manner, prejudice the subsequent defence of the accused.

(3.) HOWEVER , we are not very much concerned in this revision petition with this mistake committed by this Magistrate. It is enough to say that the examination of the accused under Section 253, Cri.P.C. is not the examination contemplated under Section 342, Cri.P.C. I have already stated that the Magistrate did not wit to the accused the evidence of the P.Ws. in the said examination. The examination under Section 342 is intended for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.