Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Natu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1900)ILR27Cal137
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentNatu and anr.
Cases ReferredEmpress v. Sudra
Excerpt:
pardon - criminal procedure code (v of 1898), section 337 and section 339--tender of pardon--trial of person who, having accepted a pardon, has not fulfilled the conditions on which it was offered--prosecution for giving false evidence--sanction of high court. - rampini and pratt, jj.1. in this case the magistrate has revoked the pardons tendered to natu and kekar and has committed them for trial to the sessions along with sarafdi, though not for murder with which sarafdi is charged. we agree with the sessions judge that the magistrate's procedure is wrong, and that it was premature to remove natu and kekar from the category of witnesses. it seems clear from clauses (2) and (3) of section 337 of the criminal procedure code that they are to be made available as witnesses at the trial of the case in the sessions court. moreover, it is the intention of the law that a person to whom a tender of pardon has been made should not be tried for an alleged breach of the conditions upon which the pardon was tendered until the original case has been fully.....
Judgment:

Rampini and Pratt, JJ.

1. In this case the Magistrate has revoked the pardons tendered to Natu and Kekar and has committed them for trial to the Sessions along with Sarafdi, though not for murder with which Sarafdi is charged. We agree with the Sessions Judge that the Magistrate's procedure is wrong, and that it was premature to remove Natu and Kekar from the category of witnesses. It seems clear from Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code that they are to be made available as witnesses at the trial of the case in the Sessions Court. Moreover, it is the intention of the law that a person to whom a tender of pardon has been made should not be tried for an alleged breach of the conditions upon which the pardon was tendered until the original case has been fully heard and determined. See Queen-Empress v. Sudra (1891) I.L.R., 11 All., 336. We must also point out that in committing the accused for trial for an offence under Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code the Magistrate appears to have contravened the injunction contained in Clause (3), Section 339 of the Criminal Procedure Code, viz., 'no prosecution for the offence of giving false evidence in respect of such statement shall be entertained without the sanction of the High Court.' Under the circumstances we quash the commitment of Natu and Kekar, and direct that they be detained in custody until the termination of the trial of Sarafdi by the Court of Session. This order will not preclude the Magistrate from hereafter proceeding against Natu and Kekar in accordance with law.


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