1. The petitioners before me have been convicted and sentenced under S. 323, I.P.C, to a fine of Rs. 30 each or in default one month's rigorous imprisonment for having committed an assault upon the complainant Janak Pathak. The sentences were passed by a Bench of Honorary Magistrates. There was an appeal to the District Magistrate, but the appeal was rejected. The learned District Magistrate's judgment offends against Section 367 of the Cr PC. He finds as a fact that the complainant was assaulted, but he makes no attempt to discuss the evidence given for the prosecution and the defence. He merely says that a detailed judgment has been recorded by the trial Court and nothing that has been urged in appeal affects the reasons given for the conviction. It has been repeatedly held that a judgment of this kind is not in accordance with law and it is only necessary for me to invite attention to Jamait Mullik v. Emperor(1). But although the judgment of the learned District Magistrate has not complied with the terms of Section 367 of the Cr PC, I do not think that it is necessary that I should remand the case for re-hearing.
2. I have been taken through the whole of the evidence by the learned vakil for the petitioners and the conclusion to which I have come is that the conviction is right. (His Lordship then discussed the evidence of each witness.) Upon a consideration of the evidence on both sides, I think the conviction is right. The result is that the conviction and sentences are affirmed and the petition is rejected.
V.S/R.K
3. Rule discharged.