JAIRAM KUNBI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The application must succeeds The Magistrate admits in his explanation that the accused was undefended by a pleader; he was therefore naturally unable to cross-examine the witnesses. The cross-examination by himself shows what its worth is. The accused was thus placed in a. very disadvantageous position by reason of his pleader's absence and the refusal of the Magistrate to adjourn the hearing at the request of the newly engaged pleader. The Magistrate could well have exercised his discretion in giving the adjournment prayed for. I think the order closing the case for judgment must therefore be set aside, and it is accordingly set aside, but subject to terms. The accused will have now full opportunity to cross-examine all the prosecution witnesses through a pleader subject however to the condition that he will have to bear the expenses of recalling those witnesses; compare Indar Rai v. Emperor [1910] 37 Cal. 236 and Lookby v. Emperor [1920] 43 Mad. 411.