RAZAK TELI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted by the first class Magistrate at Handwara of an offence Under Section 457 of the Penal Code and sentenced to four months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 10/ -. On appeal to the Sessions Judge at Srinagar, the conviction and the sentence were confirmed. The petitioner has now come up in revision.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to get the conviction set aside on the ground of non-compliance with Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is necessary to state a few facts to appreciate his contention.

(3.) BEFORE a charge was framed Under Section 254 of the Code, ten witnesses were examined for the prosecution. The petitioner cross-examined all /those witnesses. The Magistrate questioned the accused rather elaborately on every one of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and thereafter framed a charge against the petitioner. Subsequently the charge was duly read and explained to the accused and he was asked whether he was guilty, or had any defence to make. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and at the commencement of the next hearing of the case he was asked whether he wished to cross-examine any and if so which of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence had already been taken. The petitioner expressed his intention to further cross-examine the witnesses Under Section 256, but after " cross-examining three of them, he stated that he did not desire to cross-examine the other witnesses. The petitioner was then again questioned Under Section 342 of the Code. But the petitioner's learned Counsel has urged that this questioning was brief and scrappy and that the petitioner was not fully examined as required by Section 342. The questions put to the petitioner were whether he heard the evidence adduced against him by the prosecution and what be had to say in respect of it. The petitioner replied that he heard the pro- % secution evidence against him and that he had nothing further to say in defence. But this examination of the petitioner was recorded not by the Magistrate himself but by his Reader. The Magistrate complied with all the requirements of Sub-section (2) of Section 364, but he did not conform to the requirements of Sub-section (3) of that Section. He did not make a memorandum of the examination; nor did he record the reasons for. his inability to do so.