JANARDHANAM Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the conviction of the petitioner by the Third Presidency Magistrate for an offence under Section 408, I.P.C., for which he was sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. The ground alleged is that the trial before the Magistrate is vitiated by the illegality that after the charge was framed and the accused had pleaded "not guilty," the question whether he wished to further cross-examine the prosecution witnesses was put to him on the same day and that because the petitioner was undefended this was an illegality which could not be cured.

(2.) The facts are that after the prosecution witnesses were examined on 5 June 1930 the accused was charged and he pleaded "not guilty." The Magistrate's record then contains the following: He (the accused) wants to further cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The accused is undefended. I therefore have not adjourned the case to another date to put this question.

(3.) The case was accordingly adjourned to a subsequent date on which date the prosecution witnesses were admittedly further cross-examined by the petitioner himself, he not having engaged any lawyer. He called no evidence, and on the evidence before the Court he was convicted and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment.