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

1937 Supreme(Lah) 28

COLDSTREAM
Sadulla – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Coldstream, J. - This application is not opposed. Counsel states that it is necessary to call the trying Magistrate to prove that the witnesses to be cross-examined were the persons who made statements which were recorded under Section 164, Criminal P.C. The records of such statements are presumed to be genuine (see Section 80, Evidence Act) and this fact that the person who made a statement under Section 164, Criminal P.C. is the person in Court can be proved by the police officer who had the statement recorded. This application appears to be frivolous and is dismissed.

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