HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
Henderson, J. -
(1.) THE learned Government Counsel has asked me to quash this commitment.
(2.) THE accused is a taxi driver. The prosecution ease is that while driving his taxi in a negligent manner, he knocked down two persons one of whom subsequently died. He was sent up on a charge under Section 304A, Penal Code. The Magistrate accordingly started to try him under that section. He, however, suddenly altered his mind and committed him to this Court for trial on two charges (l) under Section 804, Penal Code, for causing the death of Qualm Ali, (2) under Section 838, Penal Code, for causing grievous hurt to Joynal Sircar. I am bound to say that the jury could only be asked to convict under Section 304 on a far fetched view of the evidence. Learned Government Counsel stated that he Could not press for anything more than a charge under Section 304A, and I should certainly alter the charge accordingly.
(3.) NOW the grounds on which I am asked to quash the commitment are the failure of the Magistrate to comply with the provisions of Sections 208 and 360, Criminal P. C. Under the former the Magistrate is required to take evidence in the manner prescribed in Section 326, Under the latter, as the evidence of each witness is completed it shall be read over to him in the presence of the accused or of his pleader. Neither of these provisions has been complied with. Indeed, it cannot really be said that the learned Magistrate has even made a memorandum of the evidence. It is obvious that, if an objection is taken by the accused, the Crown could not possibly contend that no prejudice has been caused, and the commitment would have to be quashed. As, Mr. Roy was not in a position to say that no prejudice was caused to his client, that is sufficient to dispose of the present matter.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.