Skip to content


Jogendra Nath Mookerjee Vs. Mati Lal Chuckerbutty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1912)ILR39Cal885
AppellantJogendra Nath Mookerjee
RespondentMati Lal Chuckerbutty
Excerpt:
jurisdiction of magistrate - charge with a view to commitment, cancellation of--criminal procedure code (act v of 1s98), section 213(2)--cross-examination of prosecution witnesses after framing of the charge, effect of--'witnesses for the defence' interpretation of--practice. - .....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, 1898, 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.....
Judgment:

Carnduff and Imam, JJ.

1. We think that this Rare 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, 1898, 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 the construction we have indicated upon them. We find, moreover, that our view is in accordance with that expressed by this Court in Surjya Narain Singh In re (1900) 5 C.W.N. 110, 112.


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