Back
1914 Supreme(Cal) 60
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Jenkins, C.J, Teunon, J.
Emperor - Appellant
Versus
Surath - Respondent
Decided On : 09-09-1914
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure - Section 208 CrPC - Commitment of Accused
Fact of the Case:
The Sessions Judge of Purnea made a reference to the High Court under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, suggesting that the law as prescribed in Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code had not been observed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Magistrate had not failed to observe the provisions of Section 208 CrPC. The fact that an application was made on the date of commitment for summoning further witnesses did not show that the provisions of the section had not been observed, as the application was made after the commitment had already been made.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate had failed to observe the provisions of Section 208 CrPC in committing the accused to the Sessions Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 208 CrPC requires the Magistrate to hear all the evidence produced before him, which the Magistrate had done. The fact that an application for summoning further witnesses was made after the commitment had already been made did not show a violation of the section.
Final Decision: The High Court directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial of the accused.
JUDGMENT
Jenkins, C.J. - This is a Reference to the High Court by the Sessions Judge of Purnea, u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the suggestion is that the law as prescribed in Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been observed. That view has been supported before us by Mr. Chaudhuri who has cited in support of it a decision in Emperor v. Muhammad Hadi ( I. L. R.1903) All. 177. That case does not purport to go beyond the decision on which it is based, that is to say, the decision in Queen-Empress v. Ahmadi (I. L. R. 1898) All. 264. But in fact it does enlarge the rule laid down in that case, in so far as it applies the rule in the earlier case, which was limited to witnesses produced, to witnesses whom the accused might be prepared to produce, and this enlargement is in conflict with the express terms of Section 208. I cannot myself see that the Magistrate has in any way failed to observe the provisions of that Section. It is not suggested that ho did not hear all the evidence produced before him, and that is all that is required by the first paragraph. The fact that an application was made out he date on which the accused was committed to the Sessions for the summoning of further witnesses appears to me to introduce no conditions which show that the provisions of that Section had not been observed. It is important to notice that what was sought was that the Magistrate should allow reasonable time for filing documents and summoning witnesses. On that the Magistrate made the order that "the accused are committed to the Court of Sessions to-day; no further adjournment can be allowed." The application, therefore, was obviously too late, for the commitment had been made. More than that, I think, in the circumstances of this case, that the accused is not deserving of any great sympathy because an application could have been made at once to this Court, u/s 215, for the quashing of the commitment if the circumstances permitted it. But instead of doing that the accused waited until the case was called on at the Sessions and took this point a month after the event. In my opinion, we ought not to uphold this Reference, and we direct the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial of the accused.
Teunon, J.
I agree.
