Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 326 cr.p.c. in Harshad Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 May, 2019Matching Fragments
19. Their Lordships highlighting the importance of trial to be decided by the Judge who had dealt with the matter, had held as under: -
"8. Ordinarily, it is the policy of law, in civil, criminal and other proceedings, that a matter before a Court is decided, as far as possible, by the Presiding Officer, who had dealt with the matter, at the earlier stages because the Presiding Officer, who has for example, examined 12 1986 Cri.L.J. 770 evidence, has had first hand impression of the witnesses, the conduct of the parties, as indeed, the demeanour of the witnesses, and would, therefore, be in the best position to decide the questions in controversy between the parties. This is, particularly, so on the criminal side as an essential emanation of the requirement of a "just and fair trial". It is, however, not always possible to follow this practice, either on the civil or the criminal side, and the matters have invariably to be decided by Presiding Officers, who have not recorded evidence, or where the evidence was recorded, and other stages of the proceedings were conducted, partly by such Presiding Officers, and partly by one or more of his predecessors-in-office. The enabling provisions of Section 35 and Section 326 of the Cr.P.C. with certain additional safeguards built into the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 326 of the Cr.P.C. are based on the legislative recognition of such eventualities. Section 326, however, on one reckoning, if due weight is given to the head-note, would appear to be inapplicable to any inquiry, other than an inquiry in committal proceedings, although the body of the section does not appear to admit of such a limitation, particularly, having regard to the fact that the expression "inquiry" has been defined by Section 2(g) of the Code to mean, "every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court" and would, therefore, be wide enough to include an inquiry by a Court, seized of a complaint under Chapter XV thereof. On general principle, therefore, there could be no bar to a succeeding Magistrate continuing the proceedings in an inquiry or a trial from the stage where the succeeded Magistrate left them off."