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

1956 Supreme(Cal) 96

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
K. C. Das Gupta, G. K. Guha
KUMAR PURNENDU NATH TAGORE - Appellant
Versus
KALIPADA DUTT - Respondent
Criminal Revn.  620  Of  1956
Decided On : JUNE 04, 1956

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.SEN, AMIYALAL CHATTERJI, Arun Sen, B.P.GUPTA, J.P.MITTER, T.C.NATH

The Magistrate has the power to recall the summons wrongly issued and it would be unjust to compel the witness to appear in court if her evidence is not necessary and the prayer for summons on her was made for an ulterior motive.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 503 - Examination of witnesses on commission - Circumstances justifying issue of commission - Embarrassment of witness due to high social status or being a Brahmin lady not sufficient - Magistrate's power to recall summons wrongly issued - Abuse of court process - Inherent jurisdiction of High Court to direct examination of witness on commission.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Kumar Purnendu Nath Tagore, filed a complaint against Saliendra Kumar Chakraborty and others for defamation under Section 500, IPC. The case was transferred to Mr. M. C. Sarbadhikary, Presidency Magistrate, for trial. After some witnesses had been examined, he went away on transfer. His successor directed a fresh trial. Lady Ranu Mookerjee, President of the National Academy of Fine Arts, was summoned to appear as a witness for the complainant. She filed an application praying that she might be examined on commission as she was a Hindu Brahmin lady and unaccustomed to appearing in a public place like a court. The Magistrate refused the prayer but ordered that he would examine her in a ground-floor room. On a subsequent application, he agreed to hold court in a building opposite the court house for her examination. The petitioner challenged the Magistrate's orders by way of a Rule.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Magistrate's order to hold court elsewhere for the examination of the witness was not justified. The mere fact that the witness belonged to a high class society or was a Brahmin lady did not make it necessary to hold court elsewhere. The inconvenience caused to the witness by appearing in court was not unreasonable and did not justify the issue of a commission under Section 503, CrPC. The High Court also held that the Magistrate had the power to recall the summons wrongly issued and that it would be unjust to compel the witness to appear in court if her evidence was not necessary and the prayer for summons on her was made for an ulterior motive. However, in the present case, the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to direct the examination of the witness on commission as it was probable that the complainant had cited her as a witness only to insult her.

Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate was justified in ordering that he would hold court elsewhere for the examination of the witness? 2. Whether the witness was entitled to a commission for her examination? 3. Whether the Magistrate had the power to recall the summons wrongly issued? 4. Whether it would be unjust to compel the witness to appear in court if her evidence was not necessary and the prayer for summons on her was made for an ulterior motive?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Magistrate's order was not justified as the mere fact that the witness belonged to a high class society or was a Brahmin lady did not make it necessary to hold court elsewhere. The inconvenience caused to the witness by appearing in court was not unreasonable and did not justify the issue of a commission under Section 503, CrPC. 2. The witness was not entitled to a commission for her examination as her evidence was not necessary for the ends of justice and the prayer for summons on her was made for an ulterior motive. 3. The Magistrate had the power to recall the summons wrongly issued. 4. It would be unjust to compel the witness to appear in court if her evidence was not necessary and the prayer for summons on her was made for an ulterior motive.

Final Decision: The High Court set aside the Magistrate's orders and directed the examination of the witness on commission.

DAS GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) ON the complaint of the present petitioner Kumar Purnendu Nath Tagore the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, issued processes against one Saliendra Kumar Chakraborty for an offence under Section 500, I. P. C. and against some other persons for an offence under Section 500/ 109, I. P. C. The case was transferred to Mr. M. C. Sarbadhikary, Presidency Magistrate, for trial but after some witnesses had been examined by him he went away on transfer. . His successor directed a fresh trial. Lady Ranu Mookerjee of No. 7 Harrington Street who , it is said, is the President of the National Academy of Pine Arts, was summoned to appeal as a witness for the complainant on 28-11-1955. On that date she filed an application praying that as her heart was very weak, she would not be able to attend the Magistrate's court which was on the first floor and she might be examined on commission. The Magistrate refused the prayer but ordered that he would examine her on the 6th of December in a ground-floor room.

( 2 ) FOR reasons which are not relevant to the decision of the present application, she was not. examined on the 9th of December. A fresh summons was served on her directing her to appear in Court to give her evidence in the case on 7-5-1956. On 2-5-1956, she filed another application praying that she might be examined on commission. The relevant portion of this application is in these words :"your petitioner is a Hindu Brahmin lady and although she is not a purdanashin is wholly unaccustomed to appear in a public place like a Court and it will cause her great hardship and embarassment to do so. Further your petitioner has not been for some time in good health. She is however fully conscious of her duty to this Honorable Court to render assistance by giving such evidence as she can and she is ready to do so before Your Honour or any Commissioner that may be appointed. In the premises, your petitioner most respectfully submits that the ends of justice will be met and served by her being permitted to be examined either on commission by a Commissioner or by Your Honour but in some place (considered to be convenient by Your Honour) other than the Court building. Your, petitioner is ready and willing to bear and pay the costs of the commission or any costs of or incidental to her examination outside Court buildings. In the circumstances, it is prayed that Your Honour would be so kind as to examine the petitioner on commission or make such other order as to Your Honour deems just. "on the 7th May the learned Magistrate passed an order, the material portion of which runs thus :". . . . . I think in view of the position she holds in society as stated by the learned counsel for her, the embarrassment she says she feels in appearing in a court of law may not be considered as quite unnatural or ummderstaudable. As she is a lady and only a witness I am prepared to accommodate her and hold court for examining her in a building not far oil from the court that can be arranged. The learned Counsel for Lady Mukherjea assures that he will bo able to arrange this in the Wallace Building opposite the Bankshall courts on the Bankshall Street. Should he be able to arrange this, I have no objection to hold the court there for her examination arid as the building is just opposite these courts, it should not inconvenience? any of the parties, either the complainant or the accused. The learned Advocate for the complainant objects to holding the court outside the court buildings. The accused have no objection. The learned Counsel for Lady Ranu Mukherjea offers to bear all the expenses incidental to holding the court in the Wallace Building and get the necessary permission for use of a portion of the premises. The case is adjourned to 17-5-1956 at 2-30 P. M. for examination of Lady Ranu Mukherjea and also complainant if time permits at Wallace Building, - Bankshall Street. . . . . "

( 3 ) ON 11-5-1956, the Magistrate, on being inform










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top