U SAUL DKHAR Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was being tried for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The trial was being held by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong exercising the powers of the Sessions Judge. The case has a protracted career. Evidence was recorded by five successive Additional Deputy Commissioners before, each in part. Ultimately it came up for hearing argument on 29.6.1978 before Shri P. J. Bazeley, Additional Deputy Commissioner of the aforesaid district. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Shri Bazeley) observed: - "...... Evidence has been completed and recorded by a large number of successive presiding officers of this Court. As such it would not be proper for the Court to appreciate the evidence at this stage. Let there be a de novo trial. Fix 1.8.1978 for evidence and summon all non -official P. Ws. on that date and all official P. Ws. on 3.8.1978......." This order has been challenged by this application under Sections 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter 'the old Code'), read with Rule 17 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice/ Police in the Autonomous Districts of Assam.

(2.) THE case came up before the Hon'ble Chief Justice (C. M. Lodha) for hearing on 14.12.1978. His Lordship observed in the order of that date: - "The important point of law involved in this case is : Whether a Deputy Commissioner trying a Sessions Case in the tribal areas of Meghalaya can act upon the evidence recorded by his predecessor even though he is guided only by the spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not by its provisions as such. ??????????????.. The question is of considerable importance and is likely to affect a number of pending cases and the cases that may, hereafter, come up before the Deputy Commissioners in tribal areas of Meghalaya and, therefore, it is necessary that there should be an authoritative decision on the point." And so he referred the case to a larger Bench. This is how the case comes up for hearing by this Full Bench of three Judges.

(3.) THE only question that falls for decision by this Full Bench is whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, who tries a Sessions case in the tribal areas of Meghalaya can act on the evidence recorded by his predecessor or predecessors or he has to try the case de novo, as was ordered by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner in this case. Shri S. C. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to try the case de novo; he ought to have decided the case on the evidence already recorded by his predecessors.