RAMNARAYAN MOR AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 1064 · Decided: 16-12-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
December 16 
1064 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1964] 
RAMNARA YAN MOR AND ANOTHER 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(B.P. SINHA, C.J., K. SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
J.C. SHAH .AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR 
JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), ss. 173(4) and 
207A(6)-"Evidence", meaning of--lf includes documents under 
s. 173(4). 
' 
I 
On the receipt of a police report, the Magistrate First Class 
Akola took cognizance of offences under ss. 406, 408, 409, 120B 
and 477A Indian Penal Code against the appellants. The Investi-
gating Officer furnished the accused persons with copies of docu-
ments which are required by s. 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure to be furnished. At the commencement of the enquiry 
under Ch. XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Public 
Prosecutor informed the Court that the evidence in the case being 
"mainly documentary" the prosecution did not desire to examine 
any witnesses at the stage of the committal proceeding. After 
the arguments on behalf of the State and the accused were heard, 
an application was submitted by. the Prosecutor that the accused 
be examined by 'the Magistrate under s. 207-A(6) of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure. 
The application was granted by the Magistrate after rejecting 
the objections raised by some of the accused and the accused were 
ordered to remain present in court for examination under s. 207-A 
sub-ss. (6) and (7). Against that order the appellants· moved the 
High Court in rnvision but without success. 
It was urged on behalf of the appellant that in an enquiry 
for commitment to the Court of Session the accused person can 
be asked to explain circumstances appearing against him only 
from the oral evidence recorded under s. 207-A(4), and not from 
circumstances appearing from the documents furnished under 
s. 173(4) of the Code. 
Held (per B.P. Sinha, C.J. K. Subba Rao and J.C. Shah, 
JJ.) (I) that the legislature has used the expression "evidence" 
at three places in cl. (6) of s. 207A of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure. In the first clause of sub-s. (6) the evidence is, as the 
statute expressly enacts "the evidence referred to in sub-s. (4)" 
and the expression "that such evidence and documents disclose 
no grounds for committing" indicates, having regard to the context 
that the evidence referred to in sub-s. (4) alone is comprehended 
thereby. But in the context of the explanation of the accused 
for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances 
appearing again:st him, the legislature has ·used the expression "in 
the evidence against him", which is not expressly qualified by reference 
' 
\~
-
• 
'< 
5 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1065 
to sub-s. (4) nor does any implication arise from the context 
which would suggest that it has a limited content. 
(ii) The legislature did not intend by using the expression 
"examined the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain 
any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him" that the 
opportunity to be given to the accused for explaining circumstances 
appearing from the oral evidence. Such a construction of the 
clause, by putting a restricted interpretation upon the meaning 
of the word 'evidence' would in many cases involve great prejudice 
to the accused. The circumstances appearing against the accused 
would in a large majority of cases be from the statements recorded 
under s. 161(3) under s. 164 and other documentary evidence re-
ferred to ins. 173(4) and if the accused is not to be given an oppor-
tunity to explain those circumstances, to a large extent the judicial 
character of the proceeding would be impaired. The accused 
may have a complete answer to the documents on which the prose-
cution seeks to rely. But if by the words used in cl. ( 6) the Magistrate 
is prohibited from examining him in respect of those documents 
the provision might frequently operate oppressively against the 
accused. The scheme of s. 251A of the Code which was brought 
on the statute book simultaneously with s. 207-A by Act 26 of 
1955, also furnishes an indication that in the examination of the 
accused for enabling him to explain circumstances appearing in 
the evidence against him, documents referred to in s. 173(4) cannot 
be excluded. 
(iii) Section 207A(6) contemplates examination only for the 
purpose of explaining any circumstances appearing against the 
accused. Declining to avail himself of such an opportunity and 
reserving his right to make a defence at 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.