RAGHYA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 12th February 1929 the applicant was convicted by the Tahsildar and Magistrate, Second Class, Basim, of an offence Under Section 354, I.P.C., and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment. His appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has been rejected and he comes up on revision to this Court. The applicant has already undergone the sentence and therefore the decision of this application is only of an academical interest.

(2.) DURING the course of the trial after the charge was framed the accused desired to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses further and with that object on 22nd November 1928 he presented an application to the trying Magistrate to grant him copies of the statements made by the witnesses to the police during the investigation. On 24th November 1928 the Magistrate recorded the following, curious order on the face of the application: Ask S.I. if the statements are on separate papers or in the general diary. If latter copies cannot be given.

(3.) IT does not appear from the record whether the police papers were sent to the trying Magistrate or not and judgment was apparently pronounced without disposing of the aforesaid application for copies. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in disposing of the appeal found fault with the trying Magistrate in not passing any final order on the application for copies, but when he found that the statements of witnesses were recorded in the diary, he should have remanded the case and allowed the accused copies thereof as was done in the case of Sulaiman Mohamed Bholai v. Emperor A.I.R. 1929 Rang. 87. But this apparent illegality cannot now be cured because the accused has already undergone the sentence and his learned pleader very properly objects to a retrial being ordered. With these remarks the application is dismissed.