EMPEROR Vs. VISHRAM NARAYAN DEVLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a society in Bombay called the Nutan Marathi Hitavardhak Sangha, At a meeting of the society on October 14, 1928, there was a dispute between the President, S. D. Tandulkar, and the present petitioner V. N. Devli, who claims to be a member of the society but whose membership is disputed. Each of the parties filed a criminal complaint against the other. The President's complaint against the petitioner for offences under Secs.447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was filed on October 19, 1928, and was heard and decided on November 13,1929. The witnesses for the prosecution were examined and cross-examined; the accused (that is, the petitioner) was examined by the Court at some length under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code; then the charge was framed; the accused was asked if he wished to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses further and he said he did not; and lastly some defence witnesses, who were present in Court, were examined. The accused was represented by a pleader. It does not appear that further time for the defence was asked for, or that any objection was then raised to the case being disposed of in one sitting.

(2.) But Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as recently amended, appears to be intended to provide that there shall ordinarily be at least two hearings (of a warrant case). The accused is to be asked at the next hearing whether he wishes to recall any of the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination. If the Magistrate thinks proper to put this question forthwith he is required to record his reasons for so doing. In the present ease the Magistrate omitted to record his reasons. That is the first ground on which this Court is asked to revise the order of conviction of the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court in Emperor V/s. Lakshman .

(3.) In the second place it is contended that the examination of the accused under Section 342 ought to have been taken after the charge was framed, and that the omission to examine the accused again under that section is an irregularity which vitiates the trial. For that proposition reliance is placed on Emperor V/s. Genu Gopal .