The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code to proceedings u/s 145, and the determination that the parties to the proceedings are not considered 'accused', and their attendance at the reading over is not necessary.

JUDGMENT

Walmsley, J. - The question referred is whether the provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code are applicable to an enquiry u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The difficulty arises from the requirement that the deposition of each witness should be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and the question for our decision becomes nothing more than this, viz., whether persons against whom proceedings u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been initiated are accused within the meaning of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The word " accused " is one of the words that have not been defined in any statute. Our attention has been drawn to various decisions in which a definition has been attempted. For the purpose for which those decisions were given they may be accepted as correct; but I do not think it necessary to consider whether the definition may be regarded as satisfactory for all purposes, for to my mind they have been rendered obsolete by the changes introduced in Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Act XVIII of 1923. That Section before the amendment ran " Every person accused before any Criminal Court may of right be defended by a pleader . It now runs Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code in any such Court, may of right be defended by a pleader. The second clause says that any person against whom proceedings are instituted in any such Court u/s 107, or under Chapter X, Chapter XI, Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI, or u/s 552, may offer himself as a witness in such proceedings. The first clause recognises two classes of persons who may be before a Court, those who are accused of an offence, and those against whom proceedings under the Code are instituted, and the second Clause emphasises the distinction by enacting that many of those of the second class may offer themselves as witnesses in such proceedings. In my judgment the effect of this amendment is to narrow the meaning of the word "accused", and to limit it to those who are accused of an offence. With all deference to those who take a different view, I do not think that any of the alarming results which they picture will follow from attributing to the word " accused" the narrow meaning. As for the suggestion that the provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code will cease to apply to evidence given in proceedings u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I see no difficulty in reading the first clause of Section 360 as meaning that the evidence is to be read over to the witness in the presence of the accused, if there is one, that is to say, in proceedings u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to each witness must be read over the deposition which he gives, but it will not be necessary that either the parties to the proceeding or their pleaders should be present.

3. This view is, I think, in accordance with the provisions of the law, and it has in its favour that it avoids the immense practical difficulties that might result from the other view, and that it does not demand in summary proceedings as to possession a more elaborate procedure than is prescribed for the civil proceedings which will finally determine questions of title.

4. My answer to the reference, therefore, is that the provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code do apply to proceedings u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, subject to the qualification that in proceedings under, that Section there is no accused whose presence at the reading of the evidence is necessary.

Gebavbs J.

5. I agree with the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Mr. Justice Walmsley and with the reasoning on which it is founded, and I do not think it necessary to deliver a separate judgment.

Cuming J.

6. The question that has been referred to the Full Bench is whether the provisions of Section 360 of the