CHANDRASHEKHA Vs. RAJARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case upon a complaint of non-applicant Rajaram the applicant Chandrashekhar was convicted by the Additional Tahsildar and Magistrate

(2.) ND Class, Mahasamund, of an offence Under Section 384, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 2. Against this conviction and sentence an appeal was filed on 5th August 1928, in the Court of the District Magistrate, Raipur, and the memorandum of appeal, which is signed by two legal practitioners (Mr. Deshmukh, Bar-at-law and Advocate and Mr. Nalgundwar, pleader), attacked the judgment of the trying Magistrate on the following grounds: 1. That the lower Court erred in law in holding that the facts on record were sufficient to make out a case Under Section 384, I.P.C. 2. That the lower Court was wrong in convicting the appellant on the mere statement of the complainant without any corroboration. 3. That the lower Court should have held that no injury as required by the I.P.C. was caused so as to bring it Under Section 384, I.P.C. 4. That the lower Court should have believed the defence story.

(3.) AGAINST this order the applicant has come up to this Court in revision. In obedience to the order of my learned predecessor, an affidavit of the applicant and a letter of Mr. Nalgundwar addressed to Mr. Deshmukh stating that they were not given an opportunity of being heard by the District Magistrate before he rejected the appeal, have been placed upon the record of this Court. On the rule issued to him to show cause, Mr. Lee, who was the District Magistrate responsible for the summary rejection of the appeal, furnished the following explanation: I have the honor to say that I have no recollection whether the counsel was present, but I imagine his statement is correct. The appeal was dismissed after a full perusal of the record and as recorded in the order dismissing the appeal it is clear that the grounds of appeal (such as they were) were considered (see third sentence of the order).