The admissibility of evidence is a matter to be decided by the court after the arguments are heard and in the judgment. It is not necessary for the Magistrate to decide this question before examining the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Headnote:
EVIDENCE - WITNESS - CROSS-EXAMINATION - ADMISSIBILITY - RELEVANCY - SECTION 313 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Whether the Magistrate should decide the question of admissibility of evidence recorded before framing of charge, before examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was accused of misappropriating Rs. 7,00,000 in conspiracy with another accused. Before the charge was framed, the prosecution examined a witness, Kashi Prasad Kedia, under section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Kedia was cross-examined on behalf of the co-accused, but the petitioner was unable to cross-examine him. After the charge was framed, the petitioner applied to the Magistrate to treat Kedia's evidence as relevant and admissible under sections 32 and 33 of the Evidence Act, or to expunge it. The Magistrate deferred the decision on the application until the time of judgment.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Magistrate did not err in deferring the decision on the admissibility of Kedia's evidence until the time of judgment. The court reasoned that the question of whether a fact is proved, disproved, or not proved must be considered by the court after the arguments are heard and in the judgment. The court also held that the petitioner's application to expunge Kedia's evidence could not be granted, as the ground put forth by the petitioner (that he had not had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness) is no ground for expunging the evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate should decide the question of admissibility of evidence recorded before framing of charge, before examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? 2. Whether the evidence of a witness who has not been subjected to cross-examination is admissible?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The question of admissibility of evidence is a matter to be decided by the court after the arguments are heard and in the judgment. It is not necessary for the Magistrate to decide this question before examining the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The evidence of a witness who has not been subjected to cross-examination is admissible, but the weight to be attached to such evidence is a matter for the court to decide after considering all the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule issued to the Magistrate.

JUDGMENT - Rele B.J. J.-The rule raises an interesting question whether the Magistrate should first decide the question, before examination of the accus-ed under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whether the evidence of a witness recorded before framing charge should be expunged, or should be treated as non est, since the witness was not available for cross-examination by the accused after the charge was framed.

2. For determining the question it would not be necessary for me to state the full facts of the case. A synopsis, sufficient for the determination of the question, would suffice. The first respondent filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court at Ballard Estate, Bombay, against the petitioner-accused No. 1 and another accused, who is respondent No. 2 in this petition and who has been served but he has not appeared, for having committed an offence under sec-tions 120-B and 408 of the Indian Penal Code. During the period from 25th February 1964 to 9th March 1972 Shri Haridas Mudhra is alleged to have been in the management and control of the complainant Turner Morri-son Company Limited under the circumstances mentioned in the com-plaint. The petitioner was a Director in that Company during that period. On 30–6-1969 the complainant Turner Morrison Company Limited opened an account with the Bank of Maharashtra. It appears that two of the Directors of the complainant Company were authorised to create an equitable mortgage of fixed assets of Messrs Mallet Welding Works, a division of the complainant-Company. The said account was opened in order to enable the complainant-Company to raise funds on security of the fixed assets. It is alleged by the complainant-Company that by a subterfuge adopted by the petitioner in collusion with respondent No. 2, the petitioner-accused No. 1 managed to obtain Rs. 7,00,000 for the benefit of himself. The modus operandi adopted by the petitioner-accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2 - accused No. 2 is that on 2–7-1969 Rs. 7,00,000 were withdrawn from the Bank of Maharashtra in favour of one Kashi Prasad Kedia, who is the witness examined in this case before the charge was framed. On the same day, i. e., on 2–7-1969, Kashi Prasad Kedia transferred the said amount of Rs. 7,00,000 in favour of Basant Trading Company, a financing Company. On the same day, i. e., 2–7-1969, Basant Trading Company issued two drafts, one for Rs. 4,00,000 in favour of Hind Product Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta, and the second for Rs. 3,00,000 in favour of Tapuria and Sons Pvt. Ltd. It appears that the said two drafts were encashed by the payees thereof on 7–7-1969. Hind Pro-ducts Pvt. Ltd, Calcutta, and Tapuria Sons Pvt. Ltd. got their respective amounts transferred in favour of the present Petitioner-accused No. 1. It is in these circumstances that the complainant-Turner Morrison Co. Ltd. have alleged that the Petitioner-accused No. 1 has misappropriated the said amount of Rs. 7,00,000 in conspiracy with respondent. No 2.

3. Before the charge was framed, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate examined the said Kashi Prasad Kedia as a witness under the provisions of section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in that examination witness Kedia produced some documents, which are marked as Exhibit 'B' and Exhibit 'C. Witness Kedia was cross-examined on behalf of respon- dent No. 2, accused No. 2, and in his cross-examination a document was produced which is marked as Exhibit 4.

4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate thereafter framed a charge under section 120-B read with section 408 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused, viz., the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, and under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner required witness Kashi Prasad Kedia for cross-examination. Some adjournments were granted at the instance of the prosecution for producing witness Kashi Prasad Kedia for cross-examination.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis