Skip to content


In Re: Easatulla Mian Alias Pramanik - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Cal104,76Ind.Cas.1031
AppellantIn Re: Easatulla Mian Alias Pramanik
Excerpt:
- .....had closed their case against keramuttulla and after the petitioner had been examined and cross-examined as a witness for the prosecution the magistrate of his own motion took cognizance of the case against the petitioner and ordered a fresh enquiry into the case against keramuttulla and the petitioner and made over the case to another magistrate for disposal. now it seems to us that after the petitioner had been discharged in respect of the case started against him and keramuttulla and after the petitioner had been examined and cross-examined as a witness for the prosecution in the case against keramutulla, it was not proper that proceedings should have been taken against the petitioner. whatever evidence could be adduced against the petitioner had really been gathered from the.....
Judgment:

1. The present Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Rajshahi to show cause why 'the proceedings taken against the petitioner should not be quashed in the circumstances set out in the petition. It appears that two persons named Keramuttulla and the present petitioner were sent up for trial in connection with a half portion of a Government Currency Note for Rs. 100. The petitioner was discharged at the trial and cited as a witness for the prosecution and examined as such in the case against Keramuttulla. After the prosecution had closed their case against Keramuttulla and after the petitioner had been examined and cross-examined as a witness for the prosecution the Magistrate of his own motion took cognizance of the case against the petitioner and ordered a fresh enquiry into the case against Keramuttulla and the petitioner and made over the case to another Magistrate for disposal. Now it seems to us that after the petitioner had been discharged in respect of the case started against him and Keramuttulla and after the petitioner had been examined and cross-examined as a witness for the prosecution in the case against Keramutulla, it was not proper that proceedings should have been taken against the petitioner. Whatever evidence could be adduced against the petitioner had really been gathered from the examination and cross-examination of the petitioner and after that had been done, the petitioner should not have been placed on his trial again. We think, the course which was adopted is contrary to the traditions of justice in criminal Courts as they now obtain.

2. In this view of the matter we make the Rule absolute and quash the proceedings against the petitioner.


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