Skip to content


Mavsang Bhavan and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.273
AppellantMavsang Bhavan and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 286(2) - prosecution witness examined before committing magistrate but his cross-examination by defence reserved--witness should be produced for cross-examination by defence before the sessions court--procedure--practice. - .....marking the scene of the offence, the houses and the roads and giving other relevant information to enable us to understand properly the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the crime. the map which was put in at the trial in the sessions court is not drawn to scale and appears to be defective and unintelligible in several particulars. the prosecution ought to get a correct map prepared by an expert.2. the sessions judge ought to have allowed the prayer of the pleader for the defence to cross-examine chhagan, who had been examined for the prosecution before the committing magistrate but whom the public prosecutor declined to examine at the sessions trial. it was, of course, open to the public prosecutor to do that but at the same time it was his duty, in the interests of justice, to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. We think that for a satisfactory disposal of this case we should have before us a correct map of the village marking the scene of the offence, the houses and the roads and giving other relevant information to enable us to understand properly the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the crime. The map which was put in at the trial in the Sessions Court is not drawn to scale and appears to be defective and unintelligible in several particulars. The prosecution ought to get a correct map prepared by an expert.

2. The Sessions Judge ought to have allowed the prayer of the pleader for the defence to cross-examine Chhagan, who had been examined for the prosecution before the Committing Magistrate but whom the Public Prosecutor declined to examine at the Sessions trial. It was, of course, open to the Public Prosecutor to do that but at the same time it was his duty, in the interests of justice, to tender the witness for cross-examination seeing that the latter had been examined for the Crown in the Committing Magistrate's Court. If the Public Prosecutor declined, the Court ought to have called the witness for cross-examination.

3. We send the case back for the prosecution to put in a correct map and the defence to cross-examine Chhagan.

4. The case to be remitted within two months.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //