JUDGMENT 1. - These two matters arise from the same case launched by police report in regard to an incident that had taken place on May 12,1971, at Ajmer. 2. The allegations of the prosecution were that there was a dispute about the price of flowers sold by Mobinuddin. A report was lodged in the police at about 9 p.m. to the effect that when Mobinuddin demanded payment for the flowers, Mohd. Hamid, Mohd. Moshin and Mohd. Sadiq gave beating to Mobinuddin with shoes, kicks and fist blows and accused Mohd. Moshinbit him on the left hand. Mobinuddin was medically examined and certain injuries were noticed on his body. The learned Munsif Magistrate First Class of Ajmer West came to the conclusion after recording the prosecution evidence that Mohammad Moshin was guilty under section 323/324,Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default of the payment of fine, two months' simple imprisonment was awarded. Mohd. Hamid and Mohd. Sadiq were sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each. The learned Magistrate finding that the relations between the accused and Mobinuddin were strained ordered the three accused to be bound under section 106, Criminal Procedure Code. A revision was taken before the learned Sessions Judge who by her order dated June 18, 1973 affirmed the convictions and the sentences but made a reference to this Court that taking of security under section 106, Criminal Procedure Code was erroneous and it should be set aside. The accused are still aggrieved & have filed criminal revision No. 594 of 1973 while the reference is numbered as 45 of 1974. They can be conveniently disposed of by a single order. 3. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that it was a simple quarrel which developed on the spot & therefore recommended that the order for binding these accused under section 106 was not justified. The learned Deputy Government Advocate does not oppose the reference and for the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge. I accept it and hereby set aside the order for binding the three accused-applicants before me namely, Mohammed Hamid, Moshmmad Moshin and Mohammad Sadiq under section 106, Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Now, comes the revision preferred by the three accused persons. Mr. I accept it and hereby set aside the order for binding the three accused-applicants before me namely, Mohammed Hamid, Moshmmad Moshin and Mohammad Sadiq under section 106, Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Now, comes the revision preferred by the three accused persons. Mr. R.C. Jain appearing for the accused urged that the trial Magistrate did not discuss the prosecution evidence as required by section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge found that there was substance in this criticism nevertheless, she did not disturb the convictions. 5. All that can be said against the judgement of the learned Magistrate is that it is unduly brief. He has only considered the evidence of the two eye witnesses and the criticism levelled against their evidence. Perhaps, a little more could be said but it will be wrong to equate verbosity with quality. The learned Sessions Judge has herself examined the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the three accused were rightly held to be guilty, and I see no reason to take a different view. 6. In this context, I will have to repeat the observations of the Supreme Court in Amar Chand Agarwala v. Shanti Bose and another, AIR 1973 SC Court 799 ; "The jurisdiction under Section 439, is normally to be exercised only in exceptional cases, when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice." 7. The next grievance of the learned counsel is that Mohd. Moshin was not put the case in regard to his having inflicted simple injury and, therefore, his conviction under section 323/324, Indian Penal Code, is erroneous. An ancillary argument was also advanced that when the Doctor has himself opined that the injury was caused by a blunt weapon no case under section 324, Indian Penal Code, was made out. The lerned Magistrate was clearly in error urged the counsel in awarding a composite sentence under sections 323 & 324, Indian Penal Code. Because of the opinion of the Doctor that the teeth bite injury was by blunt weapon, a doubt arises and the benefit whereof should go to the accused. That Mohd. The lerned Magistrate was clearly in error urged the counsel in awarding a composite sentence under sections 323 & 324, Indian Penal Code. Because of the opinion of the Doctor that the teeth bite injury was by blunt weapon, a doubt arises and the benefit whereof should go to the accused. That Mohd. Moshin voluntarily caused hurt to Mobinuddin cannot be doubted and therefore, his conviction is reduced to one under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, which error offence simpliciter without expressing any positive opinion whether teeth bite, in the circumstances of the case, was or was not by sharp edged weapon. The amount of fine is reduced in his case to Rs. 25/- (Rupees Twenty Five). In the event of his failing to deposit the fine within 15 days from the date of this judgement in the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Ajmer West, Mohd. Moshin will undergo one months simple imprisonment. If the fine in excess of Rs. 25/- has been deposited, the same shall be refunded to him. 8. In so far as the revision application of Mohd. Hamid and Mohd. Sadiq is concerned, the only argument advanced was that the prosecution evidence was discrepant and of a partisan character. The learned Sessions Judge has already appreciated the evidence and normally. I will not be justified in interfering with it nor has the learned counsel been able to convince me that there is any manifest miscarriage of justice. 9. No other point has been raised before me. 10. In the result, reference no. 45/74 is accepted, and the revision petition no. 594 of 1973 is partly allowed and Mohd. Moshin's conviction under section 323/324, Indian Penal Code, is set aside and he is convicted under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25/- (Rupees Twenty five) as indicated above. *******