KUTUB ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no point of law in this criminal revision; nor has my attention been drawn to any error of procedure which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty on a charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge contended himself with a brief reference to the case and observed that he found no reason to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate. This is hardly the way an appeal against conviction should be disposed of by a Sessions Judge.

(2.) IT is noticed that the learned Sessions Judge treating the appeal as merely one against the severity of the sentence reduced the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 300. But unfortunately, the learned Sessions Judge has given no reason why he had chosen to reduce the sentence. The well -known principle that an Appellate Court should follow in interfering with the judgment of the trial Court is that there must be adequate grounds before the Appellate Court, to justify its interference with the judgment of the trial Court, whether that interference is on the merits of the case or in regard to the sentence, which is also a matter of judgment.