Back
1930 Supreme(Mad) 281
Madras High Court
Jackson
Subramania Maistry And Anr.
Versus
Nachiar Ammal
Decided On : 27 November, 1930
The court has the discretion to determine the substance of the evidence in Section 264(1), Criminal P.C., without a specific test for substantiality.
Headnote:
Section 264(1) - Criminal P.C. - The court has the discretion to determine whether the substance of the evidence must be a complete summary or merely a statement of the evidence it deems substantial.
Fact of the Case:
The petition raised the question of whether the substance of the evidence in Section 264(1), Criminal P.C., should be a complete summary or a statement of the evidence deemed substantial.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the matter rests with the court's discretion, considering that the court is not required to record any evidence at all.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of Section 264(1), Criminal P.C., regarding the substance of the evidence required by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the discretion granted to the court and the absence of a specific test to gauge the substantiality of the evidence.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, indicating that the court has the discretion to determine the substance of the evidence.
Jackson, J.
1. The point raised in this petition is whether the substance of the evidence in Section 264(1), Criminal P.C., must be such a complete summary of the evidence as to afford material for appeal or merely a statement of the evidence which the Court thinks substantial. Considering that the Court is not required to record any evidence at all, and that therefore there is no test by which the substantiality of its record can be gauged, I think it is right to assume that the matter rests with the Court. This is the view taken by Devadoss, J., in In Re: Chockalinga Pandaram A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 597. In Nurudin Sheikh Adam v. Emperor A.I.R. 1928 Bom. 433 the substance of the defence evidence was not even attempted to be given. In the circumstances I am not prepared to interfere. Where a case is hotly contested it is questionable whether a Magistrate is well advised to try it summarily.
2. The petition is dismissed.
