Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.34 seconds)Section 239 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ali Miyan Mahomedbhai vs B.B. And C.I. Ry. on 15 February, 1908
25. A witness under cross-examination might volunteer something new, something very damaging to the accused. He might in re-examination, or indeed on a question from the Judge, introduce some completely new matter, and, therefore, we are of opinion that there is in every case an imperative duty upon the Magistrate to put into operation the provisions of Section 342 at the moment when the complainant and all the witnesses called for the prosecution have been examined in the full sense in which the word is used. We know that on the 8th December the Magistrate did question them on the case but the cross-examination of the witnesses for the complainant was not concluded until the 16th December, and no question was put to the accused by the Magistrate on any of the matters which had arisen out of the cross-examination or re-examination of the complainant or his witnesses. Therefore, we are of opinion that the Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Section 342. Mr. Kapildeo Malaviya has drawn our attention to a Calcutta case Mozahur Ali v. Emperor A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 196, which has gone the length of saying that if circumstances, such, as we have described, arise in a criminal trial the accused are entitled to claim that the omission to put Section 342 into operation vitiates the whole trial. The Calcutta High Court has so decided.
Rammu vs Emperor on 23 March, 1926
358 and Rammu v. Emperor [1926] 7 L.R.A. Cr. 128. In all these cases this Court came to the conclusion that the complainant could call in aid Section 537, Criminal P.C. on the ground that the finding, sentence or order passed by the Court should not be reversed or altered on appeal or revision, if, on examination of the circumstances, it was shown that the error had not in fact occasioned a failure of justice.
1