P L D 1955 Sind 295 (PLP)

LARI, J.‑This is an application under section 17 of the Sind Act, 28 of 1952, against the order of the Tribunal Larkana declaring the applicant to be a goonda and ordering to execute a bond :n the sum of Rs. 5,000 with three sureties in the like amount to be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years, submitted to this Court from Sukkur Central Prison. Section 10 of the Act requires that the procedure pre scribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure for conducting trials and recording evidence in summary cases but subject to the special provisions of the Act shall be followed for con ducting enquiries under the Act. Section 263 Cr. P. C. which is applicable to summary trials lays down that the plea of the accused and his examination as well as a brief statement of the reasons for the conclusions reached shall be recorded. In view of this it was incumbent on the Tribunal to examine the applicant and, if he reached a conclusion that the applicant should be declared goonda, to give a brief statement of the reasons which led the Tribunal to that conclusion. We find that the Tribunal has failed to do so. Section 342 Cr. P. C. applies to summary trials. Reference may be made to the cases Tota Ram v. Emperor (A I R (35) 1948 All. 137), and Emperor v. Muhammad Hussain and another (A I R (35) 1948 Sind 22), respectively. The method of recording a statement under section 342 has been specified in section 364 Cr. P. C. The necessary result is that section 263 sub‑clause (g) should be read along with section 342 and 364 Cr. P. C. On the perusal of the record we find that the statement of the applicant was not recorded at all. The Tribunal has, therefore, acted illegally in not examin ing the accused in the manner provided by section 342 Cr. P. C. read with section 364 of the same Code. The Tribunal has not also given a statement of the reasons for forming his conclusion. What the Tribunal says is simply this: "The prosecution evidence is overwhelmingly against him and is well corroborated. The defence witnesses depose hardly anything in his favour. As a result of the enquiry I am satisfied .." This hardly satisfies the requirements of law. A similar point came up for consideration before a bench of Calcutta High Court in the case The Empress v. Panjab Singh and another (I L R Cal. Vol. 6 p. 579) and their Lordships observed "A Magistrate, in recording his reasons for the conviction, should state them so, that this Court, on revision, may judge whether there were sufficient materials before him to support the conviction". The Chief Judge of the Chief Court Oudh observed in the case Baijoo and others v. Emperor (A I R 1939 Oudh 37.). "Where a Magistrate, invested with powers under section 260, Cr. P. C., is trying a case summarily, it is desirable that he should set out in the column reserved for that purpose so much of the reasons that have influenced him as to satisfy the accused that the Magistrate has con sidered each of the ingredients necessary in law for the conviction to which the Magistrate has proceeded, and that while this should be recorded with brevity, the brevity should not be such as ‑to tend to obscurity. These safeguards are essential so that in case of revision the High Court may have sufficient materials on the record before it for arriving at the conclusion as to whether the order of the Magistrate is right or wrong". A bench of the Sind Judicial Commissioner Court observed in the case Dayaram Satoomal v. Emperor (A I R 1935 Sind 144.). "The statement of reasons for a conviction which the Magistrate is bound to record under section 263‑H Cr. P. C. should present a clear statement of the facts constituting the offence and should show that each of the ingredients necessary for a conviction has been considered and held proved by the Magistrate." We are in respectful agreement with the above observation. The two sentences recorded by the Tribunal hardly afford any insight into the nature of allegations against the applicant and do not amount to a brief statement of the reasons for the con clusion reached by the Tribunal. We have come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has acted illegally inasmuch as it failed to record statement of the accused and give a statement of reasons. Under section 17 of the Goonda Act we are only entitled to give directions for rectification of the error or omission that the Tribunal might have committed. We set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and direct it to record the state ment of the applicant, take such evidence as the applicant may offer and then if it comes to a conclusion adverse to the applicant to record a statement of reasons for that conclu stion. The revision is decided accordingly. This order shall govern the cases of Ali Gohar son of Haji Abdul Majid, in Revision No. 262/54, Moosa son of Ghulam Yahya in Revision No. 263/54 and Dr. Nisar Ahmad son of Miran Bug in Revision No. 261/54 respectively as the facts are mainly similar. A. H. Order set aside