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

1958 Supreme(Cal) 39

J.P.MITRA, DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
DUDHNATH SHAW – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Dwijendra Narain Ghose, JATISH CHANDRA GUHA

J. P. MITTER, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule, which has been referred to us by a learned Single Judge, involves the question whether a Court has jurisdiction to dispense with the personal examination of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when he has been permitted under Section 540a of the Code to he represented by a pleader. In this case, petitioner No. 2 Kanai La! Shaw was allowed to be represented by a lawyer. In the absence of the petitioner, his lawyer was examined under Section 342. Curiously enough, the Order Sheet contained the following endorsement: "examined the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. " Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the failure to examine the said accused Kanai Lal Shaw under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the trial. In our view, this contention is well-founded.

( 2 ) IN our view, the provisions of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are mandatory. We are also of the view that the section provides for the personal examination of the accused and not any one representing him. This view is supported by the case of Adeluddin v. Emperor, 49 Cal WN 537: (AIR 1945 C



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