Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Sinnai Goundan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR20Mad388
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentSinnai Goundan and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - act x of 1882, section 203--duty of magistrate to examine loitnesses for the complainant. - - 1. inasmuch as the case was not disposed of under section 203, criminal procedure code, but summonses were issued to the complainant's witnesses, the magistrate was not at liberty, as he assumes, to 'stop the case whenever he liked......issued to the complainant's witnesses, the magistrate was not at liberty, as he assumes, to 'stop the case whenever he liked.' he was bound to examine the witnesses tendered by the complainant before acquitting the accused. this the magistrate admits he did not do.2. we must, therefore, set aside the acquittal and order a retrial.3. we observe that the magistrate, though he issued summonses to the complainant's witnesses, did not examine them, but acquitted the accused on a consideration of the complainant's statement alone. it is not clear why this unusual and illegal procedure was followed. having regard to it and to the fact that the magistrate has formed a decided opinion in the case before hearing the evidence for the prosecution, we direct that the district magistrate do.....
Judgment:

1. Inasmuch as the case was not disposed of under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, but summonses were issued to the complainant's witnesses, the Magistrate was not at liberty, as he assumes, to 'stop the case whenever he liked.' He was bound to examine the witnesses tendered by the complainant before acquitting the accused. This the Magistrate admits he did not do.

2. We must, therefore, set aside the acquittal and order a retrial.

3. We observe that the Magistrate, though he issued summonses to the complainant's witnesses, did not examine them, but acquitted the accused on a consideration of the complainant's statement alone. It is not clear why this unusual and illegal procedure was followed. Having regard to it and to the fact that the Magistrate has formed a decided opinion in the case before hearing the evidence for the prosecution, we direct that the District Magistrate do transfer the case for trial to some other Magistrate.


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