Skip to content


Mukunda Patre Vs. Purusattam Shah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929Cal479a
AppellantMukunda Patre
RespondentPurusattam Shah
Excerpt:
- .....his own personal knowledge and certain matters which do not appear on the record; and that he ought to have held that a prima facie case was made out. in the explanation of the learned magistrate he admits that there was an error of law inasmuch as the complainant was not examined and upon this ground alone the rule should be made absolute because it is clear that the complainant was entitled to have his evidence recorded. the magistrate then goes on to observe that inasmuch as the prosecution witnesses 3 and 4 had been witnesses in other cases before him and as the modus operandi in those cases was similar to the modus operandi in the present case he viewed their evidence with suspicion. finally he has observed that without the evidence of the prosecution witnesses 3 and 4 the.....
Judgment:

1. This rule was issued calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why an order of the 4th Presidency Magistrate, Northern Division, Calcutta, discharging the accused Purusattam Shah (now the opposite party) under Section 253, Criminal P.C., should not be set aside. The grounds on which the order is assailed are that the complainant was not examined and that the learned Magistrate ought not to have passed his order of discharge upon his own personal knowledge and certain matters which do not appear on the record; and that he ought to have held that a prima facie case was made out. In the explanation of the learned Magistrate he admits that there was an error of law inasmuch as the complainant was not examined and upon this ground alone the rule should be made absolute because it is clear that the complainant was entitled to have his evidence recorded. The Magistrate then goes on to observe that inasmuch as the prosecution witnesses 3 and 4 had been witnesses in other cases before him and as the modus operandi in those cases was similar to the modus operandi in the present case he viewed their evidence with suspicion. Finally he has observed that without the evidence of the prosecution witnesses 3 and 4 the prosecution case is hopeless, no matter whether the complainant is examined or not. It seems to us that the reasons which have been given for the order of discharge are quite inadequate. We accordingly make the rule absolute; set aside the order of discharge and direct a further enquiry according to law by a Magistrate other than the Magistrate whose order is complained of.


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