VENKATARAMA AIYAR Vs. SAMINATHA AIYR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole ground on which we are asked to revise the decision of the Lower Appellate Court in this case is that all the Bench Magistrates who were present at the earlier stages of the case did not take part in the decision thereof or sign the judgment, It is not denied that the two Magistrates who did sign the judgment were present throughout all the earlier hearings and heard all the evidence or that they constituted a legal quorum.

(2.) I see no reason to differ from the view taken in Karuppana Nadan v. Chairman, Madura Municipality (1898) I.L.R. 21 Mad., 246, which is clear authority for holding that the conviction is not illegal. This conflicts with no provision of law, and no consideration of justice or expediency. The contrary view would materially hamper the work of Benches of Magistrates in all but the very simplest cases. I do not think any argument can be based on a supposed analogy with the case of a jury, or a body of arbitrators. The law and practice in England appears to be similar to what I hold to be legal here. Vide Section 29 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act.

(3.) I would dismiss the petition. Seshagiri Ayyar, J.