1978 (9) TMI 198 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of Verladescheins under the Evidence Act.
2. Authority of Magistrate to discharge accused after framing charges.
3. Interpretation of High Court's directions in previous judgments.
4. Double jeopardy and autrefois acquit.
5. Delay and abuse of process by the prosecution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Verladescheins under the Evidence Act:
The case revolves around the admissibility of 10 Verladescheins (mate's receipts) as evidence. Initially, the Magistrate ruled these documents inadmissible under the Evidence Act or the Commercial Documents Evidence Act, 1939. However, upon review, 9 out of the 10 Verladescheins were admitted under Section 10 of the Evidence Act. The High Court later held that these documents could not be admitted under Section 32 as the preliminary conditions were not met. The High Court suggested that the prosecution could still prove the correctness of these documents in the ordinary way without resorting to Section 32.

2. Authority of Magistrate to Discharge Accused After Framing Charges:
The Magistrate framed charges against the accused on December 21, 1962, but later, on February 26, 1969, deleted charges 2 to 9 and discharged the accused. The High Court ruled that the Magistrate had no legal power to discharge the accused after framing charges. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that once a charge is framed, the Magistrate can only proceed to trial and cannot discharge the accused. The trial must continue to a logical end, either resulting in acquittal or conviction.

3. Interpretation of High Court's Directions in Previous Judgments:
The appellant argued that the Magistrate acted in accordance with the High Court's directions in previous judgments by Justice Gokhale, which allegedly implied the need to review the charges. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Justice Gokhale's directions did not authorize the Magistrate to delete the charges or discharge the accused. Instead, the directions were to amend the charges to reflect the correct period of conspiracy and consider additional evidence.

4. Double Jeopardy and Autrefois Acquit:
The appellant contended that the discharge should be treated as an acquittal, invoking the principle of double jeopardy or autrefois acquit, which would prevent retrial on the same charges. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the discharge was not based on the merits of the case but was an arbitrary decision without trial. Thus, it did not constitute a valid acquittal, and the High Court was within its rights to order de novo proceedings.

5. Delay and Abuse of Process by the Prosecution:
The appellant highlighted the significant delay in the proceedings, attributing it to the prosecution's laxity and abuse of process. The Supreme Court acknowledged the delay but emphasized the gravity of the charges and the necessity of a fair trial. The Court directed the Magistrate to proceed with utmost despatch and, if feasible, hold day-to-day hearings to expedite the trial within six months.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, setting aside the Magistrate's discharge of the accused and directing the Magistrate to proceed with the trial. The Court emphasized the importance of following due process and ensuring a fair trial, despite the procedural delays and complexities involved in the case.