DHIRENDRA NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but interesting question of law that seeks an answer in this revisional application is, whether in a criminal trial (other than a Sessions trial), where the accused examines witness in support of his defence, he or the prosecution should address oral arguments first. The question arises in this way.

(2.) Aloke Biswas, the opposite party No.2 in this application filed a complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta, against the petitioners for alleged commission of offences under Ss.323, 324 and 504, I.P.C. After taking cognizance, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate made over the case to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, under S.192(1), Cri.P.C. for inquiry or trial.

(3.) Pursuant to processes issued by the learned Magistrate the petitioners appeared before him after which, five witnesses were examined by the prosecution and charges were framed against the petitioners under Ss.323, 324 and 504, I.P.C. After cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution, the statements of the petitioners were recorded under the provisions of S.313, Cr.P.C. Thereafter, they examined two witnesses in support of their defence and a date was fixed for hearing of arguments.