STATE Vs. LEKH RAJ DHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions arise for decision in these cases viz. (1) whether it is necessary to frame a formal charge in a warrant case tried summarily under the provisions of Chapter XXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and (2) whether an accused person is entitled to re-call and re-cross-examine the prosecution witnesses as required by the provisions of Section 256, Criminal P. C.

(2.) On 7-8-1952, a vehicle containing about twelve maunds of wheat was intercepted by the Police while it was on its way to Delhi and three persons were prosecuted under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. They were tried summarily under the provisions of Chapter 22, Criminal P. C., and two of them were convicted and were awarded sentences of imprisonment. On appeal to the Sessions Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded their case for retrial on two grounds viz., (1) that a formal charge in writing had not been framed against the convicts and (2) that the accused were not afforded an opportunity of recalling the witnesses under the provisions of Section 256, Criminal P. C. The Delhi State Government is dissatisfied with . the order of remand and has come to this Court in revision.

(3.) The relevant provisions are embodied in Chapter 22, Criminal P. C. Section 262 provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the procedure prescribed for summons cases shall be followed in summons cases, and the procedure prescribed for warrant cases shall be followed in warrant cases. Section 263 declares that in cases where no appeal lies, the Magistrate need not record the evidence of the witnesses or frame a formal charge; but that he shall enter certain particulars in a register maintained for the purpose. Section 264 provides that in cases where an appeal lies, the Magistrate shall record judgment embodying the substance of the evidence and the particulars mentioned in Section 263 and declares that such judgment shall be the only record in cases coining within this section. As the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another, the express mention in Section 284 of the fact that the only record thereunder is a judgment containing the substance of the evidence and the particulars set out in Section 263, impliedly excludes the necessity for. recording the evidence of witnesses or the framing of a formal charge even when a warrant case is tried under the provisions of this Chapter. I am supported in this view by the decisions reported as Madhab Chandra Saha v. Emperor AIR 1926 Cal 1202 (A); King Emperor v. Maung Po Saw AIR 1935 Rang 106 (B); Emperor v. Salig Ram AIR 1926 Lah 301 (C) and; Siri Lal Ram v. The Crown AIR 1950 EP 268 (D). The answer to the first question propounded at the commencement of this judgment is thus clearly in the negative.