Skip to content


Jogendra Nath Mukherji Vs. Moti Lal Chakravarti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.406
AppellantJogendra Nath Mukherji
RespondentMoti Lal Chakravarti
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 213, sub-section (2) - 'witnesses for defence,' whether expression covers evidence extracted by cross-examination from prosecution witnesses--charge against accused framed before cross-examination of prosecution witnesses--subsequent cross-examination--cancellation of charge, if legal. - .....for the prosecution and, as the result, cancel the charge. we are of opinion that it is open to him to take this course.3. section 213, sub-section (2), of the code of criminal procedure, 1893, provides that, if a magistrate, after having drawn up a charge, hears witnesses for the defence and is then satisfied that there are not, after all, sufficient grounds for committing the accused, he may cancel the charge and discharge the accused. no doubt, the sub-section refers to 'witnesses for the defence'; but in our view, those words are wide enough to cover evidence extracted by cross-examination from witnesses for the prosecution. the course taken by the magistrate seems to us to be clearly within the spirit of the provision, and we consider that it is not unduly straining the words.....
Judgment:

1. We think that this Rule must be discharged.

2. The short point raised by it is whether a Magistrate, having drawn up a charge against an accused person with a view to his commitment to the Court of Session, can thereafter allow the accused to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution and, as the result, cancel the charge. We are of opinion that it is open to him to take this course.

3. Section 213, Sub-section (2), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1893, provides that, if a Magistrate, after having drawn up a charge, hears witnesses for the defence and is then satisfied that there are not, after all, sufficient grounds for committing the accused, he may cancel the charge and discharge the accused. No doubt, the sub-section refers to 'witnesses for the defence'; but in our view, those words are wide enough to cover evidence extracted by cross-examination from witnesses for the prosecution. The course taken by the Magistrate seems to us to be clearly within the spirit of the provision, and we consider that it is not unduly straining the words used to put this construction upon them. We find, moreover, that our view is in accordance with that expressed by this Court in In the matter of Surjya Narain Singh 5 C.W.N. 110 at p. 112.


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