KHITISH CHANDRA BOSE Vs. NANURAM MAKLANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cases were cross cases of assault. In Revision No. 354, the complainant was a Marwari gunny broker who held a monthly tramway pass. On 9 October, in the morning, he boarded a car from Sealdah to High Court as a first class passenger. The accused, who was a tramway conductor, asked for his ticket and the complainant showed him his pass. It was alleged that the accused suspected that the ticket was not the complainant s. At any rate, there was an altercation between them, during which, it is alleged, the accused abused the complainant and the complainant retaliated. Upon this, the accused is alleged to have called the complainant a swine and assaulted him. Afterwards, the complainant went to the thana and lodged a complaint. His pass which had been deposited by the accused at the thana was returned to him. Subsequently, the complainant went to the hospital. The accused, on the other hand, filed a complaint against the complainant, which is the subject matter of Revision No. 334. The conductor's case was that upon being asked for his pass, the Marwari refused to show it to him and abused him. Further, with the help of Marwari fellow passengers, the Marwari assaulted him.

(2.) The Judge first heard the evidence for the prosecution, in Revision No. 334. There was no evidence for the defence. Then he postponed judgment, and heard the case which is the subject matter of Revision No. 354. In that case, evidence was again called for the prosecution, but none for the defence. At the end of that evidence, the pleaders on both sides addressed the Court with respect to both the cases, and, subsequently, the Magistrate gave one judgment, which is the judgment in respect of Revision No. 354, and in No. 334 he recorded the following order: Vide order in the connected case. The accused is acquitted under Section 258, Criminal P.C." The Magistrate in his explanation says that the occurrence which formed the subject matter of the two cases was the same, and as such one was the cross case to the other, and the prosecution in the one was the defence in the other. Evidence in both the cases was separately gone into, after hearing which the lawyers made the same arguments for both, as the facts were the same. Both the cases were decided on their merits after weighing the evidence in both, as will appear from the order in case No. Cr/2380 of 1934 which was considered to be a part of the present case.

(3.) It is obvious that this procedure was not objected to by either of the pleaders. No objection was recorded. On the contrary, they both made one speech with regard to the evidence in both the cases. If objection had been raised by either of the pleaders, doubtless the Judge would have given separate judgments. The procedure adopted by him obviously was for the purpose of saving time and for convenience, and the only question for us to consider is whether, in these circumstances, this procedure was illegal or irregular and, if either illegal or irregular, whether it is necessary for us to interfere in Revision on the ground that some prejudice has been caused to the accused in Revision Case No. 354. In his judgment, the learned Judge after reciting the facts said: Evidence was adduced in both the cases; and it is for determination which story is true and probable.