TIRLOK Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Those two cases illustrate the unfortunate results that follow when Magistrates endeavour to rush through what threaten to be protracted proceedings regardless of the provisions of the law. Some 16 accused persons, of whom the present applicants are four, were under arrest in view of a contemplated gang case against them. The authorities, as they were perfectly entitled to do, decided to be content with proceedings under Section 110. An order under Section 112 was drawn up on the 15 July, giving notice to the accused persons of proceedings that it was contemplated to take against them under Section 110, Criminal P.C., 15 prosecution witnesses were forthwith examined. One of the present applicants, Dudhnath, was released on bail, the others remained in jail. The proceedings were held at Chaura. This was probably for the convenience of everybody, both prosecution and accused, but the result of holding proceedings at that place was naturally that there were no legal practitioners there, unless indeed they came for that particular case or some other case before the Magistrate. The accused, on the 15th, appear to have been wholly unrepresented. On the 16 and 17th, 27 more prosecution witnesses were examined. An application for bail was made by a mukhtar on behalf of Tirlok, one of the present applicants, and that was refused. There was some sort of attempt at cross-examination by one or two of the accused here and there, but, as might be expected, it consisted of only one or two questions occasionally put by one or other of the accused, and the great majority of the witnesses passed without a question being asked of them. This was what was to be expected. The accused were most unlikely to be able to conduct any efficient cross-examination themselves at all.

(2.) So far there is nothing actually illegal. July 28 was fixed for the defence. But five days earlier, on July 23 an application was made through a mukhtar on behalf of Tirlok and Dudhnath to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. This application was refused on the ground that one of the accused had been on bail since the 15 and had an opportunity to appoint counsel and an application for bail had in fact been made by a mukhtar on behalf of one of the accused. The application for the recall of the prosecution witnesses was, therefore, refused. On the date fixed for the defence, July 28, the application was repeated and was again refused. In the result the applicants before me have been called upon to furnish security under Section 110 and have furnished that security. Other of the accused persons are, I am informed, in jail upon failure to furnish security.

(3.) I am at the present moment concerned only with whether these men have had a legal trial. A subsidiary question would be whether any departure from procedure has been merely an irregularity or whether the accused have been prejudiced. The procedure that should have been followed is in my opinion perfectly clear. Section 117 requires that in the case of proceedings under Section 110 they should be conducted as nearly as may be practicable in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in warrant cases, except that no charge need be framed.