Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The word "accused" is one of the words that have not been defined in any statute. Our attention has been drawn to various decisions in which a definition has been attempted. For the purpose for which those decisions were given, they may be accepted as correct, but I do not think it necessary to consider whether the definition may be regarded as satisfactory for all purposes, for to my mind they have been rendered obsolete by the changes introduced in Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code, by Act XVIII of 1923. That section, before the amendment, ran: "Every person accused before any Criminal Court may of right be defended by a pleader." It now runs: "Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code in any such Court may of right be defended by a pleader." The second clause says that "any person against whom proceedings are instituted in any such Court under Section 107, or under Chap. X, Chap. XI, Chap. XII or Chap. XXXVI or under Section 552 may offer himself as a witness in such proceedings." The first clause recognises two classes of persons who may be before a Court, those who are accused of an offence, and those against whom proceedings under the Code are instituted, and the second clause emphasises the distinction by enacting that many of those of the second class may offer themselves as witnesses in such proceedings. In my judgment the effect of this amendment is to narrow the meaning of the word "accused" and to limit it to those who are accused of an offence. With all deference to those who take a different view I do not think that any of the alarming results which they picture, will follow from attributing to the word "accused" the narrow meaning. As for the suggestion that the provisions of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code, will cease to apply to evidence given in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, I see no difficulty in reading the first clause of Section 360 as meaning that the evidence is to be read over to the witness in the presence of the accused if there is one, that is to say, in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, to each witness must be read over the deposition which he gives, but it will not - be necessary that either the parties to the proceeding or their pleaders should be present.

17. Moreover, those who did attend could prevent the evidence of their opponents being read over in their presence by at once leaving the Court when it was attempted to read over the evidence in their presence. The result obviously would be that no proceedings under Section 145 could be carried out for each party could render them impossible. Section 145 (4) provides that the Magistrate shall receive all evidence as may be produced and take such further evidence as he thinks necessary but any party could, if Section 360 applies to Chap. XII, render the taking of any evidence impossible. The legislature clearly could not contemplate such an absurdity and for this reason deliberately omitted " parties " from Section 360. Attempts have been made to argue that the Code makes a distinction between accused persona and that the expression " accused" may be divided into two branches, persons accused of an offence and any person against whom proceedings are instituted under Section 107 or Chaps. X, XI, XII, XXXVI or Section 552 and reliance has been placed on Section 340 (1) and (2) where these two classes of persons are referred to. But this argument will not stand the simplest test. In Section 342 the expression used is " accused " which would presumably include both the branches, viz., persons accused of an offence and parties to proceedings under Section 145. No oath shall be administered to an accused and therefore no oath can be administered to a party to a Section 145 proceeding. Yet Section 340 (2) provides that a party may offer himself as a witness.

Section 340.-(1) Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code in any such Court may of right be defended by a pleader.

(2) Any person against whom proceedings are instituted in any such court under Section 107, or under Chap. X, Chap. XI, Chap. XII or Chap. XXXVI or under Section 552 may offer himself as a witness in such proceedings.

39. Therefore "an accused" before amendment was understood to mean "any person accused of an offence" and also a person as party to a proceeding under Chaps. X, XI, etc. The Legislature have used the word ''accused" in a number of sections in Chap. XXV after the amendments but without the qualification by adding the words "of an offence." Can it not, therefore, be understood that the Legislature left the word to be interpreted according to the context so as to mean one or the other thing?