P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

"This is a complaint under section 323, P. P. C. lodged by Muhammad Shuaib against accused Abdul Sattar, Abdul Reheman and Abdul Hamid. The case in brief is that the three accused beat him with kicks and fists and Danda on 13‑3‑58, at 10 p.m., when he denied the allegation of the accused about throwing stones at the house of the accused. The accused denied the complaint, and stated that complainant was beating his step mother and they intervened and hence the complainant lodged this false complaint. Complainant examined himself and P. W. 2 Muhammad Sultan and P. W. 3 Abdul Aziz. They fully support the case of the complainant. The accused examined two witnesses, D. W. 1 Murad Khan and D. W. 2 Sharif. They stated that accused never beat the complainant. I do not believe them. On the basis of prosecution evidence I convict the three accused under section 323, P. P. C. and sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 50 (Rs. Fifty) each or to suffer R. I. for one month." The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held this order bad on two grounds. Firstly, at the Magistrate concerned did not give a clear finding that the respondents voluntarily caused the hurt and secondly, that he has failed to record the particulars of the offence and the reasons for the finding which led him to convict the respondents. According to him the Magistrate should have given a summary of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses show that a case has been made out against the accused and should have further indicated why the prosecution evidence was preferred to the defence evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion the conclusions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the facts of this case are not sound. The Magistrate concerned has fulfilled all the requirements of section 263 Cr. P. C. There is no clause in this section which makes it incumbent on the Magistrate to specially mention the necessary ingredients of the offence proved. The Magistrate is only expected to mention the nature of the prosecution evidence and to give an indication that on the facts proved it is an offence under the Penal Law II. When a person is found guilty of a particular offence it means that the Magistrate is satisfied that the prosecution has fully established all its requirements. The learned Magistrate in this case clearly stated that the case for the prosecution is that the three respondents beat the complainant with kicks, fists and Danda and the prosecution witnesses have supported it. This clearly indicates that the respondents voluntarily gave the beating and caused simple hurt to the complainant. The learned Magist rate further gave the defence plea, the names of the defence witnes ses and the substance of their Statement. He found the respondents guilty of the offence because he accepted the prosecution evidence and disbelieved the defence version. I don't consider that the impugned order will become illegal simply because the learned Magistrate did not give the grounds for disbelieving the defence witnesses. I have gone over and over again through section 263 Cr. P. C. and nowhere it is stated that the order contemplated under section 263 (h) should be a well considered judgment, It only enjoins on the Magistrate in the case of a conviction to give a brief statement of the reasons. The learned Magistrate convicted the respondents because lie believed the prosecution witnesses. In my opinion the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. When a Magistrate finds a person guilty of a particular offence it means that lie is satisfied that the prosecution evidence has fully established tile necessary require ments. Mr. Imdad Ali Agha, the learned counsel for the State, has invited my attention to ,~ number of authorities to support the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He relied in this connection on A I It 1915 Sind 53 ; A I . R 1918 Pat. 484 ; A I R 1935 Sind 144 ; A I R 1942 Mad. 669 ; P L U 1955 Sind 295 ; P L D 1956 Lah. 235 and P L D 1957 Lah.

104. In Ram Harakh v. Emperor (A I R 1915 Sind 53) the learned Judges of the Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court observed that the judgment was so ambiguous that it does not give a clear picture of the prose cution case to show that each of the ingredients for an offence has been considered and held proved. In that case the Magistrate's record was found to be imperfect as it did not disclose sufficient materials to support the conviction In Janakidar and others v. Raghunath Lall (A I R 1918 Pat. 484) the Magistrate concerned disbelieved the com plainant's story but convicted the accused on the statement of the constable. It was found that on the statement of the constable the accused could at best be charged with an affray under section 160 of the Penal Code, and the learned Judges in that context observed "that the finding and the reasons required to be recorded under section 263 (h), Criminal P. C., should he so stated that the High Court in revision may judge whether there was sufficient material before the Magistrate to support the conviction" and set aside the conviction. In Dayaram Satoomal v. Emperor (A I R 1935 Sind 144) a Divisional Bench of the Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court observed "There is nothing at all from which we can infer that the conditions of sections 504 and 506, Penal Code have been satisfied." In that case the examination of the complainant did not supplement the deficiencies in the complaint. His examination in Court was in six words : "What is stated above is true." The learned Judges for these reasons set aside the conviction. In re : Govindan son of Thima Chetty (A I R 1942 Mad. 669) also the order under consider ation was as under: "We have heard both sides at length and unanimously con vict Govindan (Petitioner)." The learned Judges set aside the conviction because they found that there was nothing available on the record to show what was the case against the accused, what was the defence and whether it has been proved or not. In Iqbal Shah v. The Crown (P L D, 1955 Sind 295), a Division Bench of the Chief Court of Sind in a case tried under the Sind Control of Goonda Act came to the conclusion that the statement of the accused was not recorded at all and therefore the Tribunal acted illegally. Their Lordships further observed that the reasons for holding that the case against the accused was proved did not afford any insight into the nature of allega tions against the applicant and did not amount to a brief state ment of the reasons of the conclusion reached by the tribunal. In Shahab Din alias Punnu Khan v. The Crown (P L D 1956 Lah. 235) my brother Kaikaus, J. observed : "that it is necessary for a District Tribunal acting under the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, to record briefly the reasons for their order in accordance with section 263 of the criminal P. C." Similar view was expressed by a Bench of this Court at Lahore in Pehlwan Shah v. The State (P L D ,1957 Lah, 104). The learned counsel for the State also relied on the decision of the Chief Court of Oudh reported in Baijoo and others v. Emperor (A I R 1939 Qudh 37). This decision was approved by a Division Bench of the Sind Chief Court in P. L. D. 1955 Sind

295. In that case the impugned order read as under: "Five witnesses testified on behalf of the prosecution in this case and four for the accused. Upon consideration I find the evidence of the former worthy and of the latter unworthy of belief." In view of the learned Chief Judge in that case that "it is desirable that he (Magistrate) 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 considered each of the ingredients necessary in law for the 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", is a perfectly sound exposition of law. But the learned counsel overlooked that the impugned order did not state any facts and it was for this reason that the learned Chief Judge observed that the brevity should not be such as to tend to obscurity. The case law on the subject does not lay down that an order under section 263 (h) should be a well considered judgment. The consistent view of the High Court is that the reasons in the order must be so stated that the revisional authority may be able to judge that there was sufficient material on the record to support the conviction. In this respect no hard and fast. rule can be prescribed. Each case should be judged on its own facts but one should always bear in mind that the trial is under a summary Chapter, that order in such case is expected to be brief and is not to be set aside for an irregularity which has caused no prejudice to the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the impugned order from this point of view. I am not C inclined to endorse the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the order in cases tried under section 263 (h) should contain full reason. This will defeat the very object of the summary trial and will be placing too much burden on the Magisterial Courts. It appears to me that if the facts in the order are stated in such a manner that one can find out that the Magistrate has considered the version of both the sides and has properly applied his mind in the decision of the case, it will be a sufficient compliance of section 263 (h), Cr. P. C. and should be treated as a valid order. I have gone through the record of the Magistrate's Court. The evidence against the respondents is very damaging. I am not satisfied that the Magistrate in recording the order has committed any irregularity. In this case the learned counsels for the parties have not satisfied me that the alleged omission has caused any prejudice to the respondents resulting in failure of justice. For these reasons I decline to interfere in the matter. The conviction of, the respondent is upheld. The reference is answered accordingly. K. B. A./A. H. Reference answered.