JODHI UJJAR GOND Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The applicant for revision was convicted under Section 419, I. P. C., in the Court of the Magistrate of the Second Class, Baihar, for falsely representing to Mt. Mangli that he was a servant of the company for whom she was collecting harra and thereby inducing her to sell him 2 kuros of harra for eight annas. In what purports to be a judgment the District Magistrate merely wrote: I have gone through the record, The conviction under Section 419, I. P. C., is sound. The fine inflicted of Rs. 30 only is a very light. I see no reason to interfere and dismiss the appeal.

(2.) SECTION 367, Criminal P. C., requires that a judgment of a criminal Court must contain: (1) the points for decisions; (2) the decisions thereon, and the reasons for the decision. The provisions of that section are explained in the judgment of Stanyon, A. J. C., in Jairam v. Emperor (1912) 8 NLR 84, and the learned District Magistrate would do well to study that judgment for future guidance. It is clear that there has been no proper judgment in the appellate Court and I must therefore either remand the case for a retrial of the appeal or dispose of it myself. I propose to adopt the latter course. The three material witnesses in the case are Sambhu, P. W. 5, his wife Mt. Sundari, P. W. 4, and Mt. Mangli, P. W. 3, who lives with them. The P. M. Co. has taken a contract for harra in the Government forest outside the village of Bhima, in which these people reside, and it employs persons to collect harra on permits from that forest and pays such persons 3 annas per kuro. Seth Budhan Sao is a rival harra contractor and buys harra at the rate of 4 annas per kuro. He is clearly not entitled to buy the harra collected from the Government forest but is entitled to buy the harra collected from trees standing in the village fields.