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

1917 Supreme(Mad) 431

W.AYLING, PHILLIPS
A. L. Meango – Appellant
Versus
J. C. Baviah – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Phillips, J.

1. This is an application to set aside a sanction to prosecute petitioner appellant for an offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code; but the only point argued is the admissibility in evidence of petitioners (appellants) deposition. This deposition was properly recorded by the District Munsif, but was read over to the witness by a clerk in a room next to the Court room at a distance of 30 feet from the Munsifs seat. There were two clerks sitting between the place where the deposition was read and that where the Munsif sits. Under Order XVIII, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, a deposition shall be read over in the presence of the Judge and the witness, and the first question that arises is whether the deposition before us can be deemed to have been read over in the presence of the Judge. From the evidence on record it does not appear whether the Munsif could actually see the witness and the clerk while the deposition was being read over; but I am satisfied that the provisions of the rule would be adequately complied with if the deposition were read over in a place within the sight of the presiding Judge and from which the witness could draw the attention of the J



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