9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Misuse of discretion under Section 540 of Criminal P.C. 2. Failure to comply with Section 342 of Criminal P.C. Issue 1: Misuse of Discretion under Section 540 of Criminal P.C.: The Sub divisional Magistrate directed four applicants to furnish security under Section 118, Criminal P.C. An appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The applicants then moved the High Court alleging misuse of discretion by the Magistrate under Section 540. The applicants argued that the Magistrate wrongly called witnesses as Court-witnesses and failed to comply with Section 342. The High Court analyzed the use of discretion under Section 540 and concluded that the Magistrate did not misuse his discretion. The Court emphasized that the section imposes an obligation on the Magistrate to summon and examine essential witnesses. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Magistrate's decision based on the arguments presented by the applicants' pleader. Issue 2: Failure to Comply with Section 342 of Criminal P.C.: The second point of law involved a consideration of Section 342, Criminal P.C. The Court deliberated on whether a person under proceedings in Chapter 8 of the Criminal P.C. can be considered an accused for the purpose of Section 342. The Court noted the avoidance of the term "accused" in the relevant provisions. The Court cited previous judgments and observed that the examination of the accused was duly conducted at the required stage. The Court referenced case law from different High Courts to establish that re-examining the accused after certain witness depositions may not be mandatory. The Court highlighted the rule of prudence that allows the accused to explain circumstances against them but found no prejudice in the present case due to the omission of a second examination. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the application, ruling that the order against the applicants was not vitiated by any alleged illegality. Judgment by Mehta, A.J.C.: Mehta, A.J.C., opined that the Magistrate's decision to examine additional witnesses under Section 540 was justified in the interest of justice. The examination of these witnesses played a crucial role in the final decision. Mehta, A.J.C., concurred with the view that Section 342 may not apply to Chapter 8 proceedings, as indicated by the deliberate avoidance of the term "accused" in the relevant sections. The judgment upheld the order against the applicants, concluding that no illegality affected the decision. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the High Court provides insights into the issues of misuse of discretion under Section 540 and failure to comply with Section 342 of the Criminal P.C. The judgment clarifies the legal interpretation and application of these provisions in the context of the case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the applicants' plea.
|
