BASDEO KOIRI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of the petitioners against the summary order of dismissal of their appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Gaya. The learned Judge was asked to submit an explanation on the facts stated in para. 8 and in ground No. 1 of the application to this Court, namely that on 16 July 1937, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal summarily apparently under Section 421, Criminal P.C., but without hearing the petitioners pleader in support thereof or even without giving them a reasonable opportunity of being so heard at any stage of the appeal.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge has submitted an explanation which is to the effect that the appeal was presented before him by the pleader for the petitioners on 14 July and he heard him fully but was not inclined to admit the appeal on that date. He was in doubt whether he would summarily dismiss the appeal, but in order to satisfy himself as to the points raised by the appellants lawyer, he sent for the record of the case and having perused the same dismissed it summarily on 16 July 1937. Now, in view of this statement, which must be accepted as correct, it is not open to the petitioners to say that they were not given sufficient opportunity at the time they presented the appeal. It is true that the learned Judge has not committed any illegality in the course adopted by him as was observed by this Court Dewal Mahton V/s. Emperor A.I.R.1930. Pat 499 But in my opinion it is desirable in all cases where a busy Sessions Judge sends for the record in a criminal appeal, which is presented to him for admission, that he should note in the order, sheet the points for which he is sending for the record in order to satisfy himself as to the correctness of the submissions made by the appellants before him. It will be difficult in many cases, if not in all, for a busy Sessions Judge to remember the submissions which were advanced by the appellants advocate which had satisfied him to this extent that he was forced to send for the record.

(3.) In the present case I do not see any trace in the order-sheet of 14 July 1937 as to the points on which the learned Judge wanted to be satisfied by a perusal of the record which he sent for. Again, in the order under revision the learned Judge says in the concluding portion of his remarks: There is no reason why the complainant should pursue the prosecution, unless the appellants did something highhanded.