G V RAMAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule is directed against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta committing the accused to the sessions. The ground on which we are invited to quash the commitment is that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution. In order to understand the ground upon which this revision application is based, it is necessary to state the facts. The accused were charged under Secs.420 and 120-B, I.P.C. The case against one of the persons who were originally placed on trial was withdrawn under Section 494, Criminal P.C., end he was examined as the first witness in the case. In the course of the examination of this witness the learned Magistrate intimated that on the completion of the evidence he would commit the accused to the sessions. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused then asked for permission to reserve cross-examination at that stage and to cross-examine at a later stage. The petitioners in their petition say that on such request being made the learned Magistrate remarked that he would consider the application later. But the Magistrate in his explanation says that he refused to grant the prayer. We take it that that was so and the prayer for reserving cross-examination was refused. It appears from an examination of the record that after each witness was examined the defence was asked to cross-examine him and on their declining to do so, there is a note made by the Magistrate at the end of the examination of each witness that cross- examination was declined. The examination of the witnesses went over several days the last batch of 25 witnesses having been examined on 4 February 1929. Thereafter the accused were examined under Section 342 and charge was framed. On that day the Magistrate passed the following order: Four accused are discharged. Remainder will be committed to the High Court Sessions under Secs.420, 120-B and 511, I.P.C. tomorrow.

(2.) On the following day the order of commitment was formally passed. On 4 February an application was made on behalf of the accused for permission to cross-examine the approver namely, the first witness and some other witnesses before commitment. This application was rejected by the Magistrate with the following order: The correct time to cross-examine has passed. I do not think it necessary at this stage to allow the prayer.

(3.) The accused were committed to take their trial at the High Court Sessions which is now sitting and their case appears in the list for the present Sessions. On 8 February this rule was obtained from us for setting aside the commitment on the ground stated above. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Magistrate was wrong in rejecting their application on 4 February, and refusing to grant them permission to cross-examine some of the witnesses for the prosecution before committing them to the Sessions.