Skip to content


Samserali Hazi Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1926Cal563,94Ind.Cas.736
AppellantSamserali Hazi
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredIn Abdul (Bari) Mullick v. Emperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 360 - depositions of witnesses, reading over of--procedure--reading over of deposition of witnesses in interval and after close of day--effect. - .....when their depositions were read over to them during the interval: and the depositions of the witnesses examined one after another in the afternoon were similarly read over to them in the afternoon after the close of the day. in abdul (bari) mullick v. emperor 92 ind. cas. 887 : 42 c.l.j. 585 : a.i.r. 1926 cal. 157 : 27 cr.l.j. 375 we have held that the evidence of a witness must be read over to him after it is completed, and before the examination of another witness is started; and we have further held in that case that the reading over of the depositions of witnesses at the close of the day is not a sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 360 of the cr. p.c. the result, therefore, is that this trial must be held to be vitiated by this irregularity. in this view it is.....
Judgment:

1. The only point raised for the purpose of this appeal is that the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr. P.C. have not been complied with. It appears on the allegations made by the appellants, as well as from the explanation submitted by the Trying Judge together with the affidavit sworn by the Sessions clerk, that the witnesses were examined one after another until the midday adjournment, when their depositions were read over to them during the interval: and the depositions of the witnesses examined one after another in the afternoon were similarly read over to them in the afternoon after the close of the day. In Abdul (Bari) Mullick v. Emperor 92 Ind. Cas. 887 : 42 C.L.J. 585 : A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 157 : 27 Cr.L.J. 375 we have held that the evidence of a witness must be read over to him after it is completed, and before the examination of another witness is started; and we have further held in that case that the reading over of the depositions of witnesses at the close of the day is not a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr. P.C. The result, therefore, is that this trial must be held to be vitiated by this irregularity. In this view it is not necessary to consider the other points raised in the case. The conviction of the appellants and the sentences upon them are set aside, and it is directed that they be re-tried. The appellants will remain in Jail pending further order of the Trying Court.


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