LACHMI NARAIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Bareilly confirming the order of a Magistrate of the first class refusing to allow the applicant to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses before the charge had been framed.

(2.) The complaint was instituted on 26 January 1931 alleging that the accused had committed offences under Secs.420 and 467, I. P.C. When the complainant had been examined on 1 April 1931 an oral request was made to the Magistrate to permit his cross-examination at once. The Magistrate rejected this request. When the next witness had been examined the defence put in a written request that the Magistrate should permit the witness to be cross- examined before the framing of the charge. This request was rejected by the Magistrate in a written order. The Magistrate took the view that Section 256, Criminal P. 0., did not indicate that prosecution witnesses are to be cross- examined twice, and he could not find any justification in the Code or in the Evidence Act for the proposition that the accused has a right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses both before and after the framing of the charge. After the prosecution witnesses had been examined the Magistrate framed a charge under Section 420, I. P. 0.

(3.) The accused applied to the Sessions Judge of Bareilly asking that the Magistrate's order, refusing to allow cross-examination of prosecution witnesses before the framing of the charge, be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge discussed the point and recorded his opinion that the Magistrate was probably incorrect in his procedure, and that the accused was entitled to cross-examine a witness immediately after he had been examined and before the framing of the charge. Nevertheless, in view of the facts that all the prosecution witnesses had been examined in chief and the charge had been framed, and some of the witnesses had already been cross-examined after the charge had been framed, he rejected the application.