Q. What are the equivalent citations for Palaniandy Gounden vs Emperor ?

The equivalence citation are(1909) ILR 32 MAD 218 ; 1 IND. CAS. 54 ; LQ/MadHC/1908/209 ;

Palaniandy Gounden Vs. Emperor On 08 December, 1908

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Palaniandy Gounden vs Emperor?

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MILLER , HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANKARAN NAIR

Open iDraf

Palaniandy Gounden v. Emperor

Palaniandy Gounden
v.
Emperor

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

No. | 08-12-1908

[1] We agree with the view taken of Section 350 of the Code in the recent decisions of the Calcutta High Court in The Deputy Legal Remembrancer v. Upendra Kumar Ghose 12 C.W.N. 140; 6 Cr. L.J. 434, and in Mohesh Chandra Saha v. Emperor 35 Cal. 457;. 7 Cr. L.J. 220, where the learned Judges held that the words of that section are applicable to cases in which the case under enquiry or trial is withdrawn from one Magistrate, who therefore ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is transferred to another. In this view the Deputy Magistrate s procedure in the present case was governed by Section 350, and he was not bound to re-hear all the prosecution witnesses. Nor was the accused, in our opinion, entitled by virtue of proviso (a) to Section 350 to require a re-hearing of the evidence.

[2] The case before the Magistrate was a register case or preliminary enquiry into an accusation of an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session. It was not in our opinion a trial before the charge is framed, but was an enquiry and therefore not provided for by proviso (a) to Section 350. Even if the case were treated by the Magistrate as a warrant case the accused is not prejudiced by this construction of the section, because by sector 256 of the Code as soon as a charge is framed he can re-call for cross-examination all the prosecution witnesses whose evidence has been taken; and therefore should the proceedings become a trial he has a right equivalent to that of demanding a de novo enquiry.

[3] We dismiss the petition.

Advocates List

For the Appearing Parties -------

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MILLER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANKARAN NAIR

Eq Citation

(1909) ILR 32 MAD 218

1 IND. CAS. 54

LQ/MadHC/1908/209

HeadNote

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 350 and 256 — Preliminary enquiry into an accusation of an offence triable exclusively by Court of Session — Words of S. 350 applied to cases in which case under enquiry or trial is withdrawn from one Magistrate, who therefore ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is transferred to another — Deputy Magistrate not bound to re-hear all prosecution witnesses — Nor was accused entitled by virtue of proviso (a) to S. 350 to require a re-hearing of evidence — Held, case before Magistrate was a register case or preliminary enquiry into an accusation of an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session — It was not a trial before charge is framed, but was an enquiry and therefore not provided for by proviso (a) to S. 350 — Even if case were treated by Magistrate as a warrant case accused is not prejudiced by this construction of section, because by S. 256 of Cr. P.C. as soon as a charge is framed he can re-call for cross-examination all prosecution witnesses whose evidence has been taken — Therefore, should proceedings become a trial he has a right equivalent to that of demanding a de novo enquiry