MAROTI Vs. MT. KASABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also govern Criminal Revision No. 124-B of 1926. I presume that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate perhaps thought that the Magistrate who tried the case had given sufficiently good reasons for his conclusions and therefore he could excuse himself from giving them or discussing them at length in his own judgment. If this be so he is mistaken. A persual of the record of the appellate Court shows that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not act strictly under Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, because besides sending for the record he ordered notice to be given to the appellant's pleader as contemplated by Section 422 of the said Code; he no doubt refrained from issuing any notice to the Public Prosecutor as contemplated by the same section. This clearly shows that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate neither wanted to dispose of the . case summarily as provided by Section 421 nor after hearing both parties; but wishes to peruse the record and hear the appellant's pleader's arguments on the very question of admission of the appeal. He was perfectly justified in adopting such an intermediate course.

(2.) IF the appellants' pleader failed to make out a case for the issue of notice to the Public Prosecutor and the appellate Court thought fit to decide the case without such notice, I am of opinion that undoubtedly a formal order or judgment giving reasons was necessary to dispose of the appeal. The reason for the rule is not far to seek. It is of course well known that ordinarily all cases go before a superior tribunal in revision; a revisional Court cannot deal with an application in revision properly if the order with which it is asked to deal sets out-no grounds for the conclusion which has been reached. Reasons for the decision should be given by the appellate Court in order that the superior Court may at once know the facts found and the reasons therefore without reference to the record; Sanwant v. Queen-Empress [1897] 18 P.R. 1897 Cr., and judgment of trial Court in Dalip Singh v. The Crown A.I.R. 1921 Lah. 102, and satisfy itself as to whether the lower Court has in fact done its duty by an honest and careful consideration of the case : Queen-Empress v. Pandeh Bhat 'and Lal Behari v. Emperor [1916] 38 All. 393. In short there must be sufficient material in the appellate judgment itself to show that the appeal has been properly tried. The judgment or order must bear marks of such intelligent appreciation on the part of the appellate Court of the necessary facts and materials as would warrant this Court to infer that the conclusions were properly arrived at by the lower appellate Court : cf. Dalip Singh v. The Crown A.I.R. 1921 Lah. 102 and Arindra Rajbunshi v. King-Emperor [1916] 20 C.W.N. 1296. That it is advisible that the Court of criminal appeal should give as concisely as possible at least the main reasons which govern its order as pointed out by this Court in Ramrao v. Emperor .

(3.) THE application is allowed and the record is ordered to be sent back without delay to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for disposal of Criminal Appeals Nos. 39 and 40 of 1926 with advertence to the above remarks