Sudhir Kumar Dutt vs The King on 23 April, 1948
7. In view of the stand taken by the petitioners before me, I do not think that the Magistrate was justified in coming to the above conclusion. From what was argued before me it is clear that the purpose of examination of each and every witnesses is not one and the same. The petitioners want each and every person who pledged the ornaments with the first petitioner to be examined for proving the act of pledging that particular item of ornament. Pledging of one item of ornament by one person may not sometimes be capable of proof by examination of another person who has not pledged that ornament. In this view, the opinion of the Magistrate does not appear to be correct. I think refusal of the prayer of the petitioners will amount of denial of fairness of trial in the above circumstances. A similar question came up for consideration before the Federal Court in Sudhir Kumar Dutt v. The King- (AIR (36) 1940 Federal Court (G). In that case the provision that came up for consideration was Section 257 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In that decision it was held :