PROFULLA KUMAR SARKAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Section 154, Evidence Act, it is provided that: the Court may in its discretion permit the parson who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.

(2.) The Division Bench has referred to us two appeals by accused persons from their convictions and sentences by the Court of Session. In each case the trial was held with a jury, and in both appeals it is contended for the accused that the Sessions Judge has misdirected the jury as to the consequence in law of the fact that the Court had permitted the Public Prosecutor to put to a prosecution "witness questions of the character described by Section 154.

(3.) In the appeal of Prafulla Kumar Sarkar (No. 327 of 1930) Mr. D. N. Bhattacharjee, who appears for the prosecution has contended before us that the direction given by the learned Sessions Judge has not the meaning and effect which the Division Bench took it to have. As both cases are exactly of the same character for the present purpose, I will confine myself, to begin with, to the other case, viz. to the appeal of Abdul Hatem (No. 463 of 1930).