The respondent had been convicted by a subordinate court and appealed to the High Court. The High Court Judge had discovered that he was related by marriage to the respondent and recused himself from hearing the appeal. Having stated this he had found that he did not "like the record" and without hearing anything about the appeal he had made an order that the case should be reheard by another magistrate.
Held:
(i) Where a judge makes an order in appeal that a case should be reheard before another magistrate without a hearing merely because he did not "like the record", it amounts to the appeal being allowed to the extent of quashing the conviction and ordering a rehearing. Such an order could not be made without a hearing and would be a complete nullity.
(ii) Magistrates are required by law to record in longhand the evidence in criminal cases unless some dispensation is given by the Chief Justice. It is not a compliance with that provision of the law for a magistrate to introduce his own form of shorthand which is unintelligible to anybody else. The magistrate must record the evidence in such a form that somebody else can read it.
