CROWN PROSECUTOR Vs. CVRAMANUJULU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution examined three witnesses, and on 10 April, 1942, the Prosecuting Inspector endorsed the charge-sheet with this statement "P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 (the numbers relating to the list of witnesses in the charge-sheet) are given up." He then signed his name. The Magistrate at once framed a charge against the accused; but for one reason or another the trial proceeded no further. Before the stage had arrived for farther cross-examination, the Magistrate was transferred and the Magistrate whose judgment is now appealed against, assumed office. The accused applied for what is generally termed a de novo trial; and the three witnesses already examined were re-called and re-examined. After that had been done, the prosecution requested that one of the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet, No. 2, might be examined for the prosecution before the prosecution closed its case. The Magistrate refused to allow this witness to be examined, and passed the following order: This witness is once given up by the prosecution and not examined before framing charge. I do not think there is provision for such a course unless the witness is one not examined by the Court of its own accord before framing charge....

(2.) The matter was adjourned for further argument, when the learned Magistrate said: The Prosecuting Inspector relies on the provisions under Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code, for the examination of remaining witnesses for the prosecution after the framing of the charge. Here, as it is rightly pointed out by the accused's counsel, there are no witnesses remaining to be examined, as the list given by the prosecution under Section 252, Criminal Procedure Code, has been exhausted with the giving up of P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 on 10 April, 1942, by the Prosecutor before framing charge; the present application for examining now any of the witnesses given up is not tenable. It is dismissed.

(3.) The result was that the accused were acquitted. The Crown appeals.