RAM SUKH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that two parties fought at a public place, and in the course of the fight, the applicants caused hurt to certain persons. Two cases were started, one under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code against eleven persons at the instance of the police. The other case was started at the complaint of private parties who received injuries. There were separate trials, as has been already observed, and the applicants were separately convicted as the result of the two trials. In revision No. 470 the judgment was pronounced earlier, for we find in the Magistrate's judgment, in the hurt case, that he refers to his earlier judgment. The two judgments were pronounced on the same day.

(2.) In revision No. 470 of 1924, which arises out of the charge under Section 160, the only point urged is one of sentence. The sentence passed is one of rather a, heavy fine. So far as Ram Sukh and Brikbhan are concerned, they were fined in the sum of Rs. 100 each. In view of what I am going to say in the other case, I reduce the sentence of fine against each of Ram Sukh and Brikbhan to the sum of Rs. 50 only. The sentence of fine against Ganeshi and Beni will stand. Otherwise revision No. 470 is rejected.

(3.) In revision No. 471 of 1924 two points have been raised. First, it has been urged that the judgment of the learned Magistrate being unsigned did not operate as a judgment at all, and, therefore, the conviction should be treated as illegal. The judgment is entirely in the hand-writing of the learned Magistrate. In the circumstances I should agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the irregularity of the judgment not being signed, is covered by Section 537 of the Cr. P. Code. It will be deplorable if after a trial the judgment has to be set aside and a re-trial has to be ordered simply because the learned Magistrate forgot to sign the judgment and date it. The irregularity does not affect the merits of the case, and, therefore, this point fails.