Issue
Facts
Decision
O. S. Venkatasubba Ayyar
v.
T.m. Soundraraja Ayyangar
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
No. | 06-12-1928
[1] Petitioner was discharged because of complainant s absence. The complaint was then taken up again and the trial proceeded and it is urged that this was illegal. If a Magistrate discharges an accused because of the non-appearance of the complainant under Section 259, Criminal P.C., and Subsequently excuses that nonappearance he must proceed de novo. None of the evidence recorded in the first can be carried over to the second case.
[2] In this case no evidence had been recorded. The Magistrate was asked to proceed de novo, and his only irregularity lay in his failing to take a sworn statement. I cannot see that accused was prejudiced by this irregularity and dismiss the petition.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties -------
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
Eq Citation
1929 MWN 184
AIR 1929 MAD 260
LQ/MadHC/1928/335
HeadNote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 259 and 260 — Discharge of accused — Magistrate discharging accused because of non-appearance of complainant — Subsequent proceedings — Irregularity — Prejudice to accused — Held, if a Magistrate discharges an accused because of non-appearance of complainant under S. 259, and subsequently excuses that non-appearance he must proceed de novo — None of the evidence recorded in the first can be carried over to the second case — In the instant case no evidence had been recorded — The Magistrate was asked to proceed de novo, and his only irregularity lay in his failing to take a sworn statement — Held, accused was not prejudiced by this irregularity — Criminal Trial — Prejudice
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
