9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to proceedings under Section 207A. 2. Examination of accused persons under Section 342. 3. The validity of the Magistrate's decision to reject the respondent's application to examine defense witnesses. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Applicability of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Proceedings under Section 207A The principal issue raised by the appellant, the State of West Bengal, was whether the provisions of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to cases tried by the Magistrate under Section 207A. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 207A, which aims to expedite commitment proceedings, does not explicitly provide for the examination of defense witnesses before an order is passed. However, it does not exclude the applicability of Section 540, which grants the court wide powers to summon and examine any person if their evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. The Court stated, "Section 540 in terms applies at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code." Therefore, the Magistrate retains the jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 540 even in proceedings governed by Section 207A. Issue 2: Examination of Accused Persons under Section 342 The High Court had observed that the accused persons had not been examined under Section 342, which requires the accused to be given an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against them. However, the Supreme Court noted that under Section 207A(6), the examination of the accused is at the discretion of the Magistrate. The Court stated, "Sub-section (6) provides that the Magistrate can examine the accused if he thinks it necessary to do so." Therefore, the failure to examine the accused under Section 342 did not constitute a material irregularity that would justify reversing the Magistrate's order. Issue 3: The Validity of the Magistrate's Decision to Reject the Respondent's Application to Examine Defense Witnesses The respondent had filed a petition to examine defense witnesses to prove that the handwriting on certain cheques was not his. The Magistrate rejected this application, considering it a deliberate attempt to prolong the proceedings. The High Court reversed this decision, directing the Magistrate to reconsider the application under Section 540. The Supreme Court found that the Magistrate had indeed considered the application under Section 540 but had found it to be vexatious and intended merely to delay the proceedings. The Court noted, "The photostat copies of the disputed cheques had been given to both the accused persons nearly nine months before the 6th July, 1961... The conclusion of the Magistrate was that the application made by the respondent was vexatious and so, was intended merely to delay the proceedings in his court." Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's order dated 7th July 1961. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious proceedings and directed that the case be tried by the Court of Session without unnecessary delay. The judgment underscored the wide discretionary powers of the court under Section 540 and clarified the procedural nuances under Section 207A, thereby ensuring that the commitment proceedings are not unduly prolonged.
|
