Wimalasuriya Et Al. V. De Saram

1947 Present: Dias J.

WIMALASURIYA et al, Appellants, and DE SARAM (Inspector of
Police), Respondent.

S. C.-773-774-M. C. Balapitiya, 57,702.

Criminal Procedure-Accused produced in Court-Evidence of witness recorded under section 187 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code-Necessity for recording that evidence de novo at the trial-Criminal Procedure Code, s. 297.

Where the accused were present in Court and the Magistrate, in order to be satisfied that there was sufficient ground for framing a charge against them under section 187 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, examined a witness in the presence of the accused and, after the charges were framed, that witness was recalled at the trial and his evidence was read over to the accused who cross-examined the witness-

Held, that the procedure was regular. Herath v. Jabbar (1940) 41 N. L. R, 217 (Divisional Court), followed. Wilfred v. Inspector of Police Panadure, (1945) 46 N. L. R. 553, distinguished.

Under section 297 of the Criimnal Procedure Code if evidence has been given in the absence of an accused before an inquiry or trial commences, and if that evidence has been taken improper

Click Here to Read the rest of this document