Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 326 cr.p.c. in Salman Mushtaque Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 February, 2020Matching Fragments
15. Learned APP Mr.Lakhotiya further submitted that the petitioners, in whose cases statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded and posted for recording such statements, need not fear for de novo trial in anticipation (18) CRI.WP.945/2019 & ORS.
that the so-called admissions of the witnesses would not be considered. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1404/2019 also cannot demand de novo trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge as of right. The courts are aware about the difficulty, so also the fact that it would jeopardize the witnesses also. The learned Sessions Judge may take into consideration the evidence that has been recorded by the learned Magistrate and he may proceed further in view of Section 326 of Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on the decision in Bhaskar @ Prabhaskar and Ors. Vs. The State - AIR 1999 SC 3549, wherein it has been observed, thus, -
26. Now, another point that has been canvassed is in respect of de novo trial. In Dwarka Prasad's case (supra), there is no reference to the decision of the Apex court in Bhaskar @ (31) CRI.WP.945/2019 & ORS.
Prabhaskar's case (supra). The facts of the case in Bhaskar were definitely different. In that case, initially the case was under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (herein after referred to as TADA). The Hon'ble Apex court considered the position as to what would be the course of trial after abolition of the designated court under TADA. The case was then transferred, i.e. after abolition of the TADA, to the successor judge and in that circumstance, the provisions of Section 326 of Cr.P.C. were considered, which read thus, -
27. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken note of the amendment in Section 326 of Cr.P.C. by the Amendment Act of 45/1978. By the said Amendment, the words "Judge or" were also inserted just before the word "Magistrate" and then it is observed, " So from 1978 onwards the applicability of the section was extended to all trial Courts. The earlier position was that a Judge or Magistrate, who heard the evidence alone, could decide the case. Later any successor Magistrate was conferred with the option to act on the evidence recorded by his predecessor Magistrate in the same case. Now that option is (33) CRI.WP.945/2019 & ORS.