CHANDAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application of three men on the revisional side of the Court asking that an order under Section 110, Criminal P.C., for filing security be set aside. There are no less than 11 grounds in the application for revision, of which some five have been argued before this Court.

(2.) It has already been held by the single Judge who referred this case to the present Bench that there is no force in ground 1 that the applicants had no notice under Section 112 before they were arrested. We agree that the terms of Section 113 were fully complied with and that no notice before arrest is necessary.

(3.) Next, it is urged that the applicants were not given the substance of the information against them in accordance with the terms of Section 112. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the decision in Emperor V/s. Ramghulam A.I.R. 1927 Oudh 306, in which it was held that ordinarily it is sufficient under Section 112 if that portion of the clause of Section 110 which is applicable to the particular case is specified in the notice that is given. To this we would further add that where the particular clause refers to two or more offences, the particular offence or offences which is appropriate to the particular case should also be mentioned in the notice. This applies more particularly to Clause (d). It is unnecessary to repeat the arguments in the case to which we have referred. But we would note, if the principle which we have approved be not accepted, the utter impossibility of drawing the line at any place or of offering the Magistrates any guiding principle which would assist them in determining how much information is to be given. We may state a specific example. The evidence in this type of case generally consists of something like the evidence of 20 witnesses, who are expected to speak each of them possibly to a separate incident, sometimes one witness being supported by the evidence of another. Is the information to give the substance of the evidence that one witness is likely to give, or two witnesses or three witnesses, or where is the detailing of the information to stop? It is manifest that it would not be of any value for the purposes of giving notice of the evidence of witness 20 to give even in full the evidence that the earlier 19 witnesses were going to give. This practical difficulty only supports the view that it is sufficient if the particular clause of the charge, or where there are more than one offences named in charge, the particular offence or offences is given in the notice. In the trial of an ordinary summons or warrant case before a Magistrate an accused person is not entitled, before he appears in Court to any information as to what detailed evidence the prosecution is going to lead. What we have said on this point refers of course only to Section 110 and has not necessarily any bearing on Secs.107 and 109.