SHEIKH MOHSIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by four petitioners who have been convicted under Section 448, I.P.C., and sentenced, two of them to fines of Rs. 30 each and the other two to fines of Rs. 15 each. The trial was summary. The petitioners moved the Sessions Judge for referring the case to this Court, and the points urged before him were that the trial was bad because the Magistrate had not complied with certain requirements of Section 263, Criminal P.C. Clouse (b) of that Section requires the date of the commission of the offence to be entered in the prescribed form, and it is pointed out that this was not done. It does not seem to have been urged before the Sessions Judge that this defect, such as it was, had led or could possibly have led to any prejudice or failure of justice so as to warrant the quashing of the conviction.

(2.) A consideration to be borne in mind since the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Abdul Rahman V/s. Emperor . In Emperor V/s. Eman Ali , a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, Rankin C.J., pointed out how the Criminal P.C., is a long list of imperatives like the word "shall," some of which have reference to matters which are in no way vital and many of which are directed to minor incidents of procedure. But for Section 537, there would be grave disadvantages in a Code which makes statutory so many and so various requirements. That Section obviates the difficulty which would arise by reason of all irregularities bearing the character of transgressions of statute. The learned Chief Justice pointed out how, in view of difference of opinion in India, the Judicial Committee had in the Rangoon case carefully explained and applied Section 537 "for the guidance of the Courts," and how that decision must now govern the interpretation of the Section unless and until the Legislature shall see fit to amend the Section. Another defect that was pointed out was the failure of the Magistrate to show the value of the property as required by Clause (f) of Section 263.

(3.) The petitioners had been put on trial for offences under Secs.418, 379 and 323, and though they were sentenced under Section 448 only, the trial under Section 379 did call into operation Clause (f) of Section 263. As to the omission to enter this detail, reliance was placed on Brij Nandan Pandey V/s. Emperor AIR 1922 Pat 227, a ruling (be it noticed) of 1922, long before the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the Rangoon case. Ross J. who decided the case in question purported to follow Queen V/s. Abheen Parrida (1873) 20 WR Cr l7, a case in which a summary conviction of theft was set aside because in the prescribed form the value of the stolen property was not mentioned, nor did it anywhere appear what the value of the property alleged to have been stolen really was.