RAM SAHAI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the 18th of December 1919, a Magistrate of First Class convicted Durra and Musammat Bhoppa under Sections 325 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to different periods of imprisonment. ON the same day he recorded an order in which he directed the record to be made over to another Magistrate to enquire into the statements made in the case by Ram Sahai, Jodh Singh, Bhola and Nawab Singh, which ware false. He passed an order under Section 476 directing them to show because why they should not be prosecuted for perjury. The order is very inartistically framed and does not carry out the requirements of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It does not specify the Court or the place and the occasion on which the offence was committed. It is a careless order carelessly worded, and not one calculated to give the accused proper notice of the offence alleged against them. Magistrates passing an order under Section 476 should do so with extreme care and at least carry out the requirements of Section 195, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I do not lay down that it is absolutely necessary that the provision above mentioned should be verbally and fully carried out, but the record should satisfy this Court that the order has been passed with due care and consideration. I am not satisfied that this was done in the present case. I set aside the order. Let the record be returned.