058-NLR-NLR-V-59-M.-IBRAHIM-Appellant-and-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-RATNAPURA-Respondent.pdf
£,. W. DE SILVA , A.J.—Ibrahim v. Inspector of Police, Ratnapitra . 235
1957Present: L. W. de Silva, A. J.M. IBRAHIM, Appellant, and INSPECTOR OF POLICE, .
RATXAPURA, Respondent.
.■ S. C. 706—M. C. Ralnapura, 60,20-1–
•Criminal Procedure Code—Section 306 (1)—Judgment—Duty of magistrate to givereasons for his decision.
Omission by a Magistrate to state the reasons for his conclusions is a graveirregularity. Mere recital of facts is not a sufficient compliance with theprovisions of section 306 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
■ApPEAL from a judgment of tlie Magistrate’s Court, Ratnapura.
G. P. J. Kurukidasuriya, with F. G. Pcrcra, for the 1st accused-appellant.
jE7. II. C. Jayctilelce, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
October 1, 1957. L. W. de Silva, A.J.—
The appellant was convicted after trial on two charges framed undersections 315 and 311 of the Penal Code and sentenced to. six monthsrigorous imprisonment and to pay a line of Rs. 75 respectively.
Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the judgmentof the Magistrate contains only a mere outline of the case for the prose-cution and the defence without-reasons being given for the decision. Hehas referred me to section 306 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap.16)
“ The judgment shall be written by the District Judge or Magistratewho heard the case and shall be dated and signed by him in open Courtat the time of pronouncing it, and in cases where appeal lies shall containthe point or points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasonsfor the decision. ”
Learned counsel has asked for a new trial before another Magistrate andlias brought to my notice the case of Thuraiya v. Pathaimanyl whereNihill J. observed :'..-
“ A mere outline of the case for t-lie prosecution and the defenceembellished by such phrases as * I accept the evidence for jhe prosecu-~tion ’, ' I disbelieve the defence is by itself an insufficient dischargeof the d.uty cast upon a Magistrate by section 306 (1) of the Criminal- Procedure Code. ”' 1
1 (1939) 15 C. L. W. 119.
236 Alarvthapillai v. Commissioner for Registration of Indian <b 'Pakistani
' _Residents-■
I am unable to take any other view of the present case. The judgment 'has the heading 11 Reasons ” (though none has been given) and covers-nearly four pages of typescript. Three and a half pages are devoted to a.recital of the facts. Then conies the following concluding paragraph :—
“ There is not the slightest doubt on the evidence that the threeaccused had pelted stones and probably got some stones themselvesIn return. X have also not the slightest doubt in accepting the evi-dence of the prosecution witnesses that in the course of the stonethrowing the 1st accused flung the bottle of acid at Dorai Rajah. I .accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and find the 1st' accused guilty on counts 2 and 3.and convict him. I find him notguilty on count I and acquit him on that count.”
Learned Crown Counsel was unable to support the judgment. Nowhere-has the Magistrate given any reasons for his conclusions, nor does heappear to have considered the evidence given by the appellant and his■witnesses. The learned Magistrate’s omission to state the reasons for hisdecision has deprived the appellant of his fundamental right to have hisconviction reviewed by this Court and has thus occasioned a failure ofjustice. Without such reasons, it is impossible for this Court to judgewhether the finding is right or wrong. I therefore set aside the convictionsand sentences and order a new trial.
There is one other matter to which I should refer. In recording evi-dence, the Magistrate should comply with the requirements of section29S (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. For the identification of witnes-ses, particulars as to the race, occupation, age, place of residence, fullname etc., of each witness are always necessary and no exception shouldbe made..
.Ca.se sent back for a ncto trial.