Bhuban Chandra Hazra, 2Nd Party v. Nibaran Chandra Santra, 1St Party Opposite Party.

The Judgment of the Court was as follows:—

This Rule arises out of proceedings taken under the provisions, of sec. 145, Cr. P.C The Rule was issued, because it appeared to the Court that in his final order the trial Magistrate did not sufficiently set out the reasons which had led him to his decision.

It is contended on behalf of the Opposite Party that secs. 366 and 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not in terms apply to proceedings under sec. 145, and in support of this contention reference has been made to the case of Kalu Mirza v. Emperor (1). Whether the sections cited do or do not apply to proceedings under sec. 145, Cr. P.C, we have no doubt that we are entitled to require from the trial Magistrate a statement of the reasons for his decision sufficient to enable us to determine whether he has or has not complied with sub-sec. (4) of sec. 145, Cr. P.C, and directed his mind to the consideration of the effect of the evidence adduced before him. Without such statement of reasons it is impossible for us to determine whether the Magistrate in making his final order has acted within or without his jurisdiction. The statement of reasons in the present case which is merely to this effect—that five witnesses had been examined, that the learned Pleaders had been heard and that the oral and documentary evidence of both parties had been considered in the light of the arguments addressed to the Court—is of a stereotyped nature applicable to any and every case and obviously does not enable us to understand what in fact the evidence was or to say that the mind of the trying Magistrate had been properly and sufficiently directed to its consideration.

We, therefore, set aside the final order made by the Magistrate on the 26th January and direct that the case be re-opened at the point reached on that date and that after hearing the parties afresh, and after recording a statement of the reasons for his decision such as we have already indicated, the learned Magistrate do dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

S.C.M