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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document