RANGACHARUL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The memorandum of appeal to the lower Court is signed by a pleader; it was presented to the Magistrate who was in camp, by the appellant in person, on the 13 December 1904 and was summarily rejected at once without giving a reasonable opportunity to the pleader to appear.

(2.) The Magistrate was wrong in thus rejecting the memorandum. Nor does the case appear to be one in which the appeal ought to have been summarily rejected without sending for the records. The conviction is based on the evidence of witnesses who are no longer members of the company and are alleged by the accused to have been dismissed by them. Their evidence ought to have been read by the Magistrate or he should have heard the pleader before dismissing the appeal.

(3.) I accordingly set aside the order of the Magistrate, under Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code, direct the First-class Magistrate of Masulipatam Sub-division to restore the case to his file and dispose of it according to law.