JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kota, dated 9.9.87 by which he convicted the accused appellant for offence u/s 325 IPC and 120 of Indian Railways Act and Sentenced to undergo one years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months Rigorous Imprisonment and six months Rigorous Imprisonment respectively. Both the sentences have been made to run concurrently. 2. The accused was committed to the court of Sessions, Kota for standing trial for offences under Section 120 Indian Railways Act and Section 333 IPC. The case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1 Kota, who framed charges for the aforesaid offences. At trial prosecution examined 7 witnesses in support of its case. Accused examined one witness in defence. After hearing arguments the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced by the appellant as indicated above. Aggrieved by which this appeal is filed. 3. A perusal of the judgment shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to apply his mind to the provisions of Section 354 Cr. P. C. He has narrated the points for determination and the case law cited, but has not discussed either of them properly. It was obligatory upon the learned Judge to have assigned proper reasons for the decision on each of the points framed and thereafter to have looked into provisions of law before he recorded his findings and imposed the sentence, 4. I would have admitted the appeal and decided the same on merits after calling for the record but that would have taken a long time and the learned Judge would not have known mistakes he committed and his short comings. I am not discussing the facts and law involved in the case as it may prejudice case of either party. I also refrain from doing so as I am inclined to remand this case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kota for re-writing the judgment in accordance with law, as an extra ordinary case. I am fortified in my this view by a decision reported in Purushottam Raghu Nath v. The State of Maharashtra (1973 Maharashtra L.J. 108) wherein it has been held that a case may be remanded for rehearing of arguments and decision thereafter. I am fortified in my this view by a decision reported in Purushottam Raghu Nath v. The State of Maharashtra (1973 Maharashtra L.J. 108) wherein it has been held that a case may be remanded for rehearing of arguments and decision thereafter. There are ex-facie glaring errors in the judgment which warrant an interference with the judgment, for example. Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to a term of six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 120 Indian Railway Act when the law does not provided for such a punishment. Sec. 120 Indian Railway Act is re-produced hereunder : "Sec. 120:-Drunkenness or nuisance on a railway-If a person in any railway carriage or upon any part of a railway - (a) is in a state of intoxication, or (b) commits any nuisance or act or indecency, or uses obscene or abusive language, or (c) wilfully and without lawful excuse interferes with the comfort of any passenger or extinguishes any lamp, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to fifty rupees, in addition to the forfeiture of any fare which he may have paid and of any pass or ticket which he may have obtained or purchased, and may be removed from the railway by any railway servant." 5. A bare perusal of Section shows that the maximum punishment provided under the law is that or sentencing the accused with fine and that too up to Rs. 50/-. Thus it was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to have recorded the sentence of imprisonment at all much less to record rigorous imprisonment for six months. This alone shows total lack of application of mind and a careless attitude of the learned Judge. Since the sentence is suspended for a period of one month, harm could not be caused, else, had the accused would have been sent to jail in accordance with judgment, possibly it would have only been cured academically. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also not taken note of the provisions of Section 360 and 361 Cr. P. C. consideration of which is also mandatory. It is expected of the learned Judge that before he decide the case, he must go through the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure carefully, specially Secs. 235 and 361 Cr. P. C. To deal with these sections in a mechanical manner is not the intention of the legislature. P. C. consideration of which is also mandatory. It is expected of the learned Judge that before he decide the case, he must go through the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure carefully, specially Secs. 235 and 361 Cr. P. C. To deal with these sections in a mechanical manner is not the intention of the legislature. It is not an idle formality and there must be proper application of mind followed by reasoned order. It is also expected of the learned judge that he must open the book before he writes the judgment. Lessor comment upon the quality of judgment better it is. 6. I would accordingly set aside the judgment and consequently conviction and sentence of the accused appellant and acquit him of both the charges and remanded the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kota for re-hearing the arguments and decide the case in accordance with law, after properly appreciating the evidence and taking into consideration relevant provisions of law. *******