Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Emperor vs C.A. Mathews on 29 July, 1929

G.L. Biswas And Ors. vs The State on 8 August, 1950

The cross-examination under Section 252 is a matter of interpretation and practice, and the accused retains the right of full cross-examination after the charge is framed. But under Section 208 he has statutory right to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution at length. This express statutory provision is in recognition of the inherent right of a citizen not to be harassed in the Court of Session if he can satisfy the Court by cross examination that no case has been made out against him and that he should be discharged. It may be observed, that the deposition of a witness if not cross-examined by the accused under Section 208 of the Code may be used against him under the proviso to Section 33 Evidence Act, if the other conditions laid down in the section are fulfilled but it has been held that such a deposition is not admissible under Section 33, Evidence Act, if the accused did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses under Section 252 of the Code: vide Emperor v. C.A. Mathews, A. I. R. (16) 1929 Cal. 322 (31 Cr. L. J. 809). We are, therefore, of the opinion that, even if an opportunity was given to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses under Section 252 before the framing of the charge, he cannot be deprived of his right to cross-examine the witnesses if the procedure of chap. 18 of the Code is adopted. The framing of the charge under Section 210 by the Magistrate without complying with the provision of Section 208 is illegal. He can frame the charge only after giving a full opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution, because before the framing of the charge the accused is entitled to an opportunity to satisfy the Magistrate by cross-examination that the case is one for discharge and not for commitment.
Patna High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Harprasad Ghashiram Gupta And Anr. vs State on 22 June, 1951

[14] Mr. Boovariwala has referred us to this case Emperor v. C A Mathews, not so much for contending that the evidence of an accomplice needs no corroboration --indeed, be concedes that it does require corrobo-ration--but for submitting that Bhat and Chhota-lal are not really accomplice witnesses and in any case were not accomplices is their own cause. It in contended that Bhat and Chhotalal are not guilty of the offence for which accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are tried. They were not guilty associates in the crime of making a false declaration under Section 7 of Ordinance III of 1946 and did not sustain such a relation to the criminal act of making a false declaration that they could be jointly indicted with the accused. In this context our attention was drawn to the observations of Glover J. who said (p. 20) :
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Asiatic Oxygen And Acetylene ... vs The State And Ors. on 27 January, 1976

In an earlier Full Bench decision, Emperor v. C.M. Mackey reported in AIR 1926 Cal 470 : 27 Cri LJ 385 (FB) the Chief Presidency Magistrate took proceeding under Section 476, Cr. P.C. against the witness, drew up a complaint and then transferred it to a Presidency Magistrate for disposal. The latter issued process held an enquiry and committed the petitioner for trial. While the Full Bench considered the question of propriety of drawing up a complaint and taking cognisance himself, the issue of process by the transferee Magistrate was not found fault with,
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State vs Ghani Bandar And Ors. on 13 October, 1959

The sane view was taken in Lachmi Narain v. Emperor A.I.R. 1931 All 621 and Emperor v. C. A. Mathews A.I.R. 192p Cal 822. On the other hand, after the charge is framed the accused is given by the Legislature a clear right to cross-examine the witnesses Under Section 256, Cr.PC. This distinction clearly shows that the Legislature did not intend proceedings in a warrant case before that 'framing of charge to amount to 'trial'. Again, it seems to me that whereas in proceedings before the framing of charge the Legislature provides that where the case has been instituted upon a complaint the accused can be discharged if the complainant is absent but this can be done only at any time before the charge has been framed and not thereafter. Section 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - S M Ali - Full Document

D.P. Sinha vs E.T. Sen on 14 October, 1969

(9) An examination of the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Emperor v. C.A. Mathews which is a leading case on the subject however shows that according to the learned Judges, Section 256 Cr'.P.C. does nto prohibit cross-examination by the accused before charge is framed and the magistrate can as a matter of discretion allow, and indeed will be well advised to allow the accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses even before the charge is framed. It was of course said that merely because the magistrate was expected to give an opportunity to the accused to crossexamine before the charge was framed, it did nto follow that the Court must give him such an opportunity.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

P. Janakiraman vs N. Uma Devi And Ors. on 5 October, 1998

W.N. 445 : Nor is Article 227 meant for correcting slight errors - Dalmia Jain Airways, v. Sukuniar Kukherjee State of West Bengal v. Durga Devi A.I.R. 1951 Cal.100, or to interfere in case of mere failure to appreciate evidence the part of a final tribunal - Bhavalal v. Jivanlal A.I.R. 1951 Sau.43; Israil Khan v. The States A.I.R. 1951 Assam 106 In short superintendent inpludes power to guide, advise and encourage Judges of the subordinate Courts, to direct subordinate Courts and tribunals to carry out its orders; and to direct enquiry with a view to take disciplinary action for flagrant maladministration of justice: see Emperor v. P.C. Tampore A.I.R. 1940 Sind 239 (EB); Santildl v. Kedar Nath A.I.R. 1935.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cbi vs . Rakesh Kumar Jain on 7 September, 2015

28. "Thus, an examination of the provisions of these different sections of Chap.21 of the Code clearly shows that an absolute right of cross- examination by the accused is expressly given only by Section 256, after the charge is framed. Before the framing of the charge, there is no express statutory provision for the cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses. The phrase" take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution" occurring in section 252 of the Code has been interpreted in several cases to mean that the Magistrate should give the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, if be should so desire, even though the charge may not be framed, a procedure that is well established in this State. But that is not the same thing as saying that the Magistrate must give the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses before the charge (Ashirbad v. Maju, 8 C.W.N. 838; and Emperor v. C.A. Mathews, AIR (16) 1929 Cal. 822:
Delhi District Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next