PRASANTA KUMAR MUKERJEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was tried along with several other persons on a charge under Section 147, I. P. C. The trial took place inside the Hooghly Jail, and was by a Magistrate who was posted at Serampore. On the 23rd of August, 1950, after examining 5 prosecution witnesses inside the jail, the learned Magistrate framed a charge under Section 147, I. P. C. The Magistrate without fixing a fresh date for the cross-examination of the witnesses called upon the accused to cross-examine the witnesses then and there and accordingly when the witnesses had been cross-examined, the accused was examined under Section 342, Cr. P. C. No defence was adduced and after hearing the argument, 6-9-50 was fixed for judgment, and was delivered on that date convicting the accused and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Hooghly but the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the accused has been prejudiced in the trial by the illegal act of the learned Magistrate in not proceeding in the manner as laid down in Section 256, Cr. P. C. for e cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. This section lays down the mode in which the Magistrate has to proceed after charge has been framed and the accused asked to plead to the charge. It lays down that

(3.) It was contended next by Mr. Gupta on behalf of the petitioner that the trial has also been vitiated by the fact that a Magistrate of Serampore held a trial at Hooghly. In view however of the provisions of Section 12, Cr. P. C., which deals with the appointment of Magistrates of the first, second or third class in any district outside the Presidency towns and also lays down that the Provincial Government may from time to time define local areas within which such persons may exercise such powers we are unable to accept this contention. Subsection (2) of Section 12 provides that "Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of such persons shall extend throughout such district". We have examined the order appointing the trying Magistrate in the District of Hooghly and posting him to Serampore. We have not been shown anything to indicate that there was any specified local area within the district within which the Magistrate was to exercise his powers. The conse- which is not cured by the provisions of Section 537. therefore is that the jurisdiction and powers of this Magistrate extended throughout the District of Hooghly.