Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Riding and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR9All720
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentRiding and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, section 509 - deposition of medical witness taken by magistrate tendered at sessions trial--magistrate's record not showing, and evidence not adduced to show, that deposition was taken and attested in accused's presence--deposition not admissible in evidence--act i of 1872 (evidence act), section 114, illustration (e). - .....of the criminal procedure code, it was essential that the deposition should have been 'taken and attested by a magistrate in the presence of the accused.' since the prosecution was bound to prove every step of the case against the prisoners, before such a deposition could be admitted it must either appear on the magistrate's record, or must be proved, by the evidence of witnesses, to have been taken and attested in the prisoners' presence. his lordship had been referred to section 114, illustration (e) of the evidence act; but that section did not direct the court to presume the existence of facts likely to have happened, such as the regular performance of judicial nets, but left the court free to make the presumption or not according to its discretion. this being a criminal case in.....
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J.

1. Said that he was of opinion that the deposition was inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 509 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it was essential that the deposition should have been 'taken and attested by a Magistrate in the presence of the accused.' Since the prosecution was bound to prove every step of the case against the prisoners, before such a deposition could be admitted it must either appear on the Magistrate's record, or must be proved, by the evidence of witnesses, to have been taken and attested in the prisoners' presence. His Lordship had been referred to Section 114, illustration (e) of the Evidence Act; but that section did not direct the Court to presume the existence of facts likely to have happened, such as the regular performance of judicial nets, but left the Court free to make the presumption or not according to its discretion. This being a criminal case in which, as he had said, the prosecution must prove every step of its case, he did not think it proper or expedient to act on a presumption that the requirements of Section 509 had been complied with, and he therefore ruled that the deposition should not be admitted.


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