Skip to content


In Re: Sadayan Chetty and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in124Ind.Cas.606a
AppellantIn Re: Sadayan Chetty and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 257 - issue of subpoena to witnesses--magistrate, whether has discretion to refuse further examination. - - 1. a magistrate has a large discretion under section 257 of the criminal procedure code and if in re kaile lakshmayya air1927mad129 goes so far as to hold that once a magistrate has subpoened witnesses under section 257, he is bound to compel their attendance although he is satisfied that it is unnecessary for the purposes of justice, i respectfully disagree. 2. however, in the present case the accused clearly explained that they wanted an adjournment because their vakil was ill, and as the witnesses were subsequently present there is no apparent reason for not letting them be cross-examined.orderjackson, j.1. a magistrate has a large discretion under section 257 of the criminal procedure code and if in re kaile lakshmayya : air1927mad129 goes so far as to hold that once a magistrate has subpoened witnesses under section 257, he is bound to compel their attendance although he is satisfied that it is unnecessary for the purposes of justice, i respectfully disagree.2. however, in the present case the accused clearly explained that they wanted an adjournment because their vakil was ill, and as the witnesses were subsequently present there is no apparent reason for not letting them be cross-examined. the sentence is cancelled and the case ordered to be taken up as from when the cross-examination was refused.
Judgment:
ORDER

Jackson, J.

1. A Magistrate has a large discretion under Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code and if In re Kaile Lakshmayya : AIR1927Mad129 goes so far as to hold that once a Magistrate has subpoened witnesses under Section 257, he is bound to compel their attendance although he is satisfied that it is unnecessary for the purposes of justice, I respectfully disagree.

2. However, in the present case the accused clearly explained that they wanted an adjournment because their Vakil was ill, and as the witnesses were subsequently present there is no apparent reason for not letting them be cross-examined. The sentence is cancelled and the case ordered to be taken up as from when the cross-examination was refused.


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