IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Jackson
Sadayan Chetti
Versus
Emperor
Decided On : 13 December, 1929
Discretion - Criminal Procedure Code - The court has a large discretion under Section 257, Criminal P.C. to summon witnesses and compel their attendance, but this discretion is not absolute.
Fact of the Case:
The accused requested an adjournment due to their lawyer's illness, and the witnesses were subsequently present for cross-examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court cancelled the sentence and ordered the case to be taken up from when the cross-examination was refused, with fines to be refunded.
Issues: The issue of compelling witness attendance and the accused's request for an adjournment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court has discretion under Section 257, Criminal P.C. but must consider the circumstances, such as the accused's explanation for an adjournment.
Final Decision: The sentence was cancelled, the case was ordered to be taken up from the point of refusal of cross-examination, and fines were to be refunded.
Jackson, J.
1. A Magistrate has a large discretion under Section 257, Criminal P.C. and if Lakshmayya v. Emperor A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 129 goes so far as to hold that once a Magistrate has summoned witnesses under Section 257, he is bound to compel their attendance although he is satisfied that it is unnecessary for the purposes of justice, I respectfully disagree.
2. However, in the present case the accused clearly explained that they wanted an adjournment because their vakil was ill, and as the witnesses were subsequently present there is no apparent reason for not letting them be cross-examined. The sentence is cancelled and the case ordered to be taken up as from when the cross-examination was refused. Fines will be refunded.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.