Skip to content


Sanatan Bhattacharya Vs. King Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Criminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Cal720
AppellantSanatan Bhattacharya
RespondentKing Emperor
Excerpt:
- .....criminal procedure code. although according to the provisions of section 117, sub-section 2 of the code evidence should be recorded in cases referred to in that section in the manner prescribed for recording evidence in warrant cases that does not make section 356 applicable in all its terms, because section 356 specifically refers to enquiries under chaps, 12 and 18 only and does not refer to chap. 8. the result, therefore is that in making enquiries under section 117 evidence should be recorded as in a warrant case. but chap. viii not having been referred to in section 356, section 360 of the code would not apply to the record of such evidence. 5. as this bench is now constituted it cannot refer this question to a full bench, my learned brother having expressed his opinion previously.....
Judgment:

Newbould, J.

1. The question that arises in this rule is whether the provisions of Section 360. Criminal Procedure Code are applicable to proceedings under Section 117, Criminal Procedure Code when a person is called upon to show cause why he should not furnish security for good behaviour.

2. In Clause 2 of that section it is provided that such an enquiry shall be made in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in warrant cases. Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code refers to evidence taken under Section 356 or 357. Though Section 356 does not expressly refer to warrant cases it refers to all oases other than summons oases and cases mentioned in Sub-section 1 of Section 260, Clauses "b" to "m." These clauses include some oases which are warrant cases, but only cases of minor offences. The Code does not prescribe a manner for recording evidence applicable to all warrant cases. I think that to give a reasonable meaning to the words in Section 117, Section 356 must be held to prescribe the manner in which evidence should be recorded in warrant cases. If this is so, it follows that Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code is applicable and failure to comply with the provisions of that section would vitiate the enquiry or trial which has resulted in an order under Section 118 of the Coda.

3. On behalf of the Crown it is pointed out that enquiries under chapters 12 and 18 of the Code are specifically mentioned in Section 356 and it is argued that if it wag intended to make this section applicable to any proceeding under chapter 8 also, that would also have been expressly mentioned. It seems to me that the legislature having provided that evidence should be recorded as in warrant cases in Section 117 did not think it necessary to again refer to these proceedings when dealing with the question of the manner in which evidence was to be recorded. My attention has also been drawn to the case of Benode Behari Nath v. Emperor . It is true that it is hard to distinguish the reasoning under which it was there held that the provisions of Section 342 are not applicable to eases of enquiry under Section 117 from the argument advanced on behalf of the Crown in opposing the present rule. But there are two other unreported cases to one of which I was a party-Criminal Revision Case No. 727 of 1924 decided on the 7th November, 1924, and Criminal Revision Case No. 851 of 1924 decided on the 25th November, 1924, and in both of these it was held that an omission to comply with the provisions of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code in proceedings under Section 117, Criminal Procedure Code vitiated the trial. Following these decisions I must make this rule absolute.

B.B. Ghose, J.

4. As we are bound by the previous decisions of this Court on the question now before us I agree that this rule must be made absolute so long as these decisions are not overruled by a Full Bench. Personally I entertain considerable doubt whether Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code applies to proceedings under Chap. VIII of that Code. The provisions of Section 360 are matters of procedure and having regard to the fact that the directions are mandatory the disregard of the provisions of that section with regard to any trial or enquiry, vitiates the whole trial or enquiry. But in construing a matter of procedure, which does not involve any question of principle, we must be guided by the actual words of the Code and Section 360 only refers to evidence taken under Section 356 or Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Although according to the provisions of Section 117, Sub-section 2 of the Code evidence should be recorded in cases referred to in that section in the manner prescribed for recording evidence in warrant cases that does not make Section 356 applicable in all its terms, because Section 356 specifically refers to enquiries under Chaps, 12 and 18 only and does not refer to Chap. 8. The result, therefore is that in making enquiries under Section 117 evidence should be recorded as in a warrant case. But Chap. VIII not having been referred to in Section 356, Section 360 of the Code would not apply to the record of such evidence.

5. As this Bench is now constituted it cannot refer this question to a Full Bench, my learned brother having expressed his opinion previously on this matter to which he adheres. We must consider ourselves bound by the decisions referred to in his judgment.

ORDER

6. We set aside the order passed against the petitioner under Section 118,, Criminal Procedure Code. It will be open to the District Magistrate to take further proceedings against the petitioner if he thinks fit.


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