SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(Bom) 80

M.C.CHAGLA, Y.V.DIXIT
Arunachalam Swami and Ors – Appellant
Versus
State of Bombay and Anr – Respondent


Judgment

1. The four petitioners before us were put up before the Presidency Magistrate. 9th Court, under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code. The learned Presidency Magistrate after following the procedure laid down in Section 207A, Criminal P.C. came to the conclusion that the accused should be committed for trial and thereupon he passed an order of commitment. Before the order was passed the accused applied to the learned Magistrate that they should be permitted to lead evidence to disprove the allegations made against them by the prosecution.

This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that there was no provision in law for defence evidence. The petitioners have now come before us under Article 227 praying that we should quash the Order of commitment on the ground that the new procedure followed by the learned Magistrate under Section 207A was contrary to the Constitution inasmuch as it offended against Article 14 and also on the ground that on merits the commitment order was bad.

2. Now, the Constitutional aspect of this petition raises a rather interesting question. The amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code which was effected recently by Act























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top