DINDAYAL Vs. BASUDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Criminal Case No. 56 of 1951 filed by complainant Basudeo against Dindayal and Heeralal Under Sections 323, 325 and 109, IPC arguments were heard by the learned trial Honorary Magistrate on 296-1954 and 14-7-1954 was fixed for delivery of judgment. On that day, the Presiding Officer did not attend the court and 19-7-1954 was fixed for delivery of Judgment. But the delivery of judgment was postponed to 28-7-1954. On that day again no judgment was delivered and the learned trial Honorary Magistrate summoned the injury register maintained by the Victoria Hospital in respect of outdoor patients for May 1951. On 5-8-1954, the accused presented an application that further evidence could not be recorded. On this application, arguments were heard on 9-8-1954 and by his order dated 23-8-1954. the learned Magistrate held that he had authority to summon any witness at any stage before judgment was delivered. Against that order, a revision application was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, who has now recommended that the order of the trial court dated 28-7-1954 be set aside. In this revision application, I have heard the learned Counsel for Dindayal and Heeralal accused, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for Basudeo complainant.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the accused is that the powers Under Section 540, Criminal P. C, cannot be exercised after the conclusion of the arguments as the trial ends with the conclusion of the arguments. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has referred me to 'natabar Ghose v. Adya Nath Biswas' AIR 1923 Cal 690 (A) and 'bakshi Ram v. Emperor' AIR 1938 All 102 (B ). Reference has also been made by the learned Sessions Judge to 'public Prosecutor, Madras v. Chocka-lingam Ambalam' AIR 1929 Mad 201 (C) and 'visvanatham Krishtiah v. Y. Pedda Venkata' AIR 1936 Mad 136 (D ). But these were cases under Sections 526 and 528, Criminal P. C. The learned Public Prosecutor has referred me to 'channu Lai v. Rex' AIR 1949 All 692 (E); Inayat v. Rex' ; 'in re, P. C. Perumal' AIR 1924 Mad 587 (2) (G); 'mangat Rai v. Emperor' AIR 1928 Lah 647 (H); 'beni Madho v. Emperor' AIR 1941 Oudh 20 (I) and 'mahomed Akbar v. Emperor' AIR 1948 Nag 209 (J ).

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the accused has urged that the word 'trial' has been used in Sections 268, 309, 366 and 497, Criminal P. C, in a manner to exclude the judgment in the case and should be similarly construed in Section 540, Cr. PC This question was considered in detail in AIR 1950 All 369 (F) and their Lordships held: It seems to us that the word 'trial' has not been used throughout the Code in the same sense. This conclusion is further fortified by a reference to the history of the law relating to criminal procedure.