Back
1963 Supreme(SC) 298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
16th December, 1963
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., K. SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Ramnarayan Mor and another, Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. S. Bobde, Advocate, and M/s. O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji, and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co: for Appellants; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (M/s. H. R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents. 951
A.S.Bobde, H.R.KHANNA, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, O.C.MATHUR, R.H.Dhebar, Ravindra Narayan
The term "evidence" in Section 207-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding the examination of the accused to explain circumstances, includes both oral evidence recorded under sub-section (4) and documentary evidence furnished under Section 173(4).
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 207-A(4), (6), (7) and 173(4) - Examination of accused during committal proceedings - Power of Magistrate to examine accused to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him - Expression "evidence" in Section 207-A(6) is not restricted to oral evidence recorded under sub-section (4) but includes documents referred to in Section 173(4) - Purpose of such examination is to enable the accused to explain circumstances and to help the Magistrate determine if a prima facie case exists for commitment to the Court of Session (Paras 6, 7, 11).
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 207-A(6) vs Section 342 - Examination under Section 207-A(6) is for the purpose of explaining specific circumstances and is not general questioning as contemplated under Section 342 - Failure to avail of the opportunity to explain circumstances does not justify a presumption that the answer would be unfavourable (Para 9).
(C) Indian Evidence Act - Section 3 - Definition of "evidence" includes both oral evidence and documents produced for inspection of the court (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
In a case involving charges of misappropriation and conspiracy, the prosecution relied primarily on documentary evidence and chose not to examine witnesses during the committal proceedings. The Magistrate ordered the examination of the accused under Section 207-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to explain circumstances appearing against them. The accused challenged this order, contending that such examination is permissible only based on oral evidence recorded under Section 207-A(4) and not on documents furnished under Section 173(4).
Findings of Court:
The Magistrate is empowered, if deemed necessary, to examine the accused to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence, which encompasses both oral evidence recorded and the documents referred to in Section 173(4).
Issues: Whether the expression "evidence" in Section 207-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, used for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain circumstances appearing against him, is limited to oral evidence recorded under sub-section (4) or includes documentary evidence furnished under Section 173(4).
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that restricting the examination of the accused only to oral evidence would cause great prejudice to the accused, as most incriminating circumstances often appear in documentary evidence, such as statements recorded during investigation. The objective of the committal inquiry is to judicially ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out. Therefore, the Magistrate must be able to consider the entire record, including documents, to obtain a complete picture of the case.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
SHAH, J.: (for self and Sinha, C.J.I. and Subba Rao, J.) - A police report was lodged in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Akola, against the appellants and fifty-five others on charges for offences punishable under Ss. 406, 408, 409, 120-B and 477-A Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer furnished the accused persons with copies of documents which are required by S. 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be furnished. At the commencement of the enquiry, the public prosecutor informed the Court that the evidence in the case being "mainly documentary the prosecution did not desire to examine any witnesses at the stage of the committal proceeding. After the arguments on behalf of the state and the accused were heard, an application was submitted by the prosecutor that the accused be examined by the Magistrate under S. 207-A (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application was granted by the Magistrate after rejecting the objections raised by some of the accused and the accused were ordered to remain present in Court for their examination under S. 207-A sub-ss. (6) and (7). Against that order the appellants moved the High Court of Bombay in revision, but without success. With special leave, the appellants have appealed to this Court.
2. The appellants say that in enquiry for commitment to the Court of Session the accused person can be asked to explain circumstances appearing against him only from the oral evidence recorded under S. 207-A (4), and not from circumstances appearing from the documents furnished under S. 173(4) of the Code.
3. A brief review of the provisions relating to proceedings for commitment of the accused to the Court of Session may be useful in considering the plea of the appellants. The Court of Session has except in cases expressly provided in the Code no power to take cognisance of a case directly on a complaint or a report of a police officer or on its own motion. The case must be committed by a Magistrate competent in that behalf. Commitment under the Code predicates some enquiry into the case for the prosecution by a Magistrate who must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the accused. The enquiry is calculated to serve a dual purpose to give to the person accused of the serious offence with which he is charged information about the case together with the nature of the evidence with which it is sought to be established, and at the same time to eliminate cases in which there is no reasonable ground for conviction. For this purpose, under the Code of Criminal Procedure as originally enacted in all cases exclusively triable by the Court of Session, or where in the opinion of the Magistrate the case ought to be tried by such Court, witnesses intended to be examined before the Magistrate, documents on which the prosecution sought to rely were duly proved and tendered in evidence and if the Magistrate was satisfied that there was sufficient ground for committing the accused for trial, a charge was framed on which the accused was committed for trial. But this procedure was often found cumbrous and led to great delay in the trial of criminal cases, without affording any real compensating advantage to the accused at the trial. The Legislature with a view to secure expeditious disposal of cases tried by the Court of Session, incorporated by Act 26 of 1955 S. 207-A, which prescribed for inquiry in proceedings commenced on the report of a police officer, a simpler procedure while maintaining the original procedure for commitment of cases commenced otherwise. Simultaneously with the incorporation of S. 207-A provision was incorporated in S. 173(4) imposing a statutory obligation upon the police officer to furnish or cause to be furnished before the commencement of an enquiry or trial, copies of the police report, first information report, and of all other documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposed to rely, including statements and confessio
