OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these References, the question is "whether purdanashin ladies in rajasthan should be compelled to appear as witnesses in the Court, or may be examined on commission under Section 503, Cri. P. C. ?

(2.) IN S. B. ,cr. Reference No. 124 of 1963 Mst. Saraswati wife of Hanuman Suthar was challaned by the Police under Section 420, I. P. C. on the First Information report lodged by Rupshanker that Mst. Saraswati had taken some ornaments from his son Promode Shanker in the presence of Premwati wife of Rupshanker. At, the trial of Mst. Saraswati, Rupshanker filed an application before the trial Court that mst. Premwati be examined on commission as she was a pardanashin lady. The magistrate refused to examine her on commission but observed in his order that due Regard- to the dignity and observance of pardah shall be made at the time of her examination in the Court. Rupshanker then filed a revision application, before the District Magistrate, Bikaner and the said magistrate has referred this case to this Court. The learned magistrate has not made any recommendation but has prayed that the divergence of judicial opinion on this score should be finally settled. This case came up for hearing before Chhangani, J. The learned Judge referred to the two judgments of this Court -- Jaigovind v. Lalchand, 1951 Raj LW 172 and Mst. Man Kanwer v. Salehraj, ILR (1958) 8 Raj 267: (AIR 1058 Raj 137)and pointed out that there was a divergence of judicial opinion on this point in this court. He referred the matter to a larger Bench, and in this way this case has come before us.

(3.) LET us take notice of the two decisions of this Court. In 1951 Raj LW 172 ranawat, J. observed, as follows: