Empress vs Kali Churn Chunari - 1881 Supreme(Cal) 87

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1881 Supreme(Cal) 87

WILSON, PRINSEP
Empress – Appellant
Versus
Kali Churn Chunari – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Prinsep, J. - In my opinion there is no ground for our interference in this case. The objection raised is, that the Deputy Magistrate refused to require the Police officer to refresh his memory from a statement of the witness which he had recorded u/s 119 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It does not appear that this Police officer, when examined as a witness, desired so to refresh his memory. I think that the accused was not entitled to insist upon the Police officer refreshing his memory by referring to his notes, because, u/s 126, he was not entitled himself to see these notes or any papers prepared in the course of a Police investigation; and Section 119 declares that [156] such notes shall not be treated as part of the record or be used as evidence. Reg. v. Uttamchand Kapurchand 11 Bom. H.C.E. 120 is not in point.

2. As regards the other objection taken, I have not been shown that, in the procedure taken by the Deputy Magistrate, the accused has been any way materially prejudiced in his defence. It seems to me rather, that the Deputy Magistrate had very good grounds for examining the witnesses for the defence on the day on which they attended, rather than deferring their

Click Here to Read the rest of this document