Skip to content


Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Ajit Munshi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1932Cal750a,140Ind.Cas.18
AppellantSuperintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs
RespondentAjit Munshi and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....be taken towards the end of the trial, specially when the accused are not complaining of the trial before seven jurors.2. the only other matter is this: at the very end of the trial it is said that it came to the notice of the public prosecutor that one of the jurors at an early stage of the trial and in a private conversation said to a friend that he did not think that there was any case against the accused and that there would probably be a verdict of not guilty. we are accustomed to hear of complaints on the assumption that a magistrate, even after hearing a case for weeks is not entitled to have any opinion at all before the conclusion of the case. i do not know whether jurors are always able to keep their minds open in the same way. it may be an indiscretion on the part of a.....
Judgment:

Rankin, C.J.

1. This is an application brought by the Government to have a certain case which is being heard before the Additional Sessions Judge of Mymen-singh transferred to another Court or why an order should not be made that the jury should be discharged. It appears that the trial of the case began on 22nd April and that on or about the 3rd May an adjournment was given in order that this Court might be moved. The complaint was that the learned Judge having summoned 18 persons, and only some six effective persons having attended made up the necessary number of seven though he could have made it nine if he did not insist upon making his selection from (among persons in Court whose names were on the list of special jurors. Whether it was a valid objection or not it was an objection which should have been taken at the time: but it cannot be taken towards the end of the trial, specially When the accused are not complaining of the trial before seven jurors.

2. The only other matter is this: At the very end of the trial it is said that it came to the notice of the Public Prosecutor that one of the jurors at an early stage of the trial and in a private conversation said to a friend that he did not think that there was any case against the accused and that there would probably be a verdict of not guilty. We are accustomed to hear of complaints on the assumption that a Magistrate, even after hearing a case for weeks is not entitled to have any opinion at all before the conclusion of the case. I do not know whether jurors are always able to keep their minds open in the same way. It may be an indiscretion on the part of a juror to make observations even in the bosom of his family about a case. The mere circumstance that a man is betrayed by his friend for having mentioned to him in a conversation that he does not think the prosecution case to be true in the particular case in which he has been serving as a juror does not seem to me to be a matter which at the end of the trial can be used as a reason why the trial should begin afresh.

3. In my judgment, it is quite impossible to make this Rule absolute and it should be discharged.

4. Let the record be sent down as soon as possible.

C.C. Ghose, J.

5. I agree.


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