STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus TULSIDAS MUNDHRA

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 11-09-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
I 
THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
v. 
TULSIDAS l'vfUNDHRA 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. c. DAS GUPTA AND 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, .JJ.) 
Criminal Procedure-Proceeding on Police report-Accused 
if entitled to lead evidence-Power of court to examine person as 
court witness-Magistrate, if bound to exam-ine accused r>erson-
Gode of Criminal Procedure, 18.98(Act V of 18.98), ss. 207A, MO. 
Although an accused person is not entitled to lead evidence 
in his defence in a proceeding under s. 207 A of the Code of 
(~riminal Procedure, that does not affect the wide powers a 
Criminal Court has under s. 540 o:f the (:ode to summon and 
examine persons as court witnesses where it considers such exa· 
mination essential for a just decision of the case. 
Section 540 
of the Code is wide enough to include a proceeding under 
s. 207 A of the Code and its operation is not excluded by the 
scheme of s. 207 A of the Code. 
Arunachalam Swami v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1956 Bom. 
695 referred to. 
Sub-section (6) of s. 207A of the Code does not make 
it incumbent on the Magistrate to examine an accused person 
unless he thinks it necessary to do so. 
Consequently, in the present case, where the Magistrate 
in a proceeding under s. 207 A of the Code rejected the applica-
tion of the accused persons for examination of witnesses in 
defence not because he had no power under s. 540 of the Code 
to do so but on the gr,•und that the application was vexatious 
and was intended to delay the proceeding and the High Court 
in revision on ·an erroneous view of the Magistrate's order set 
it aside and directed examination of the accused person under 
s. 342 of the Code. 
Hekl, that the order of the High Court must be set aside. 
1962 
&pumber 11. 
1962 
Stau of West 
Bengal 
v. 
Tulsidas Mundhra 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 88 of 1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated November 30, 1961, of the Calcutta High 
Court in Cr. R. No. 1117 of 1961. 
D. R. Prern, R. N. Sachthey and R. Ii. Dhebar, 
for the appellant. 
\ 
A. S. R. Chari, 
Ravinder 
Narain, J. B. 
Dadachanji and 0. 0. Mathur, for the respondent. 
1962. September 11. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
Cl•jendragadkar, J. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, ].-The principal point 
which the appellant, the State of West Bengal, !,as 
raised for our decision in the present appeal, is whe-
ther the provisions of section 540 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure apply to a case tried by the 
Magistrate under section 207 A of the Code. That 
question arises in this way. On the 7th July, 1960, 
a charge-sheet was submitted under s. 173 of the 
Code by Inspector Bhuromal of the Special Police 
Establishment, New Delhi, in the Court of the Chief 
Presidency 'Magistrate, Calcutta, against Hari Das 
Mundhra, accused No. 1, and the respondent Tulsidas 
Mundhra, accused No. 2, under section 120B/409 and 
sections 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. 
On the 5th August, 1960, both the accused persons 
appeared before the learned Chief Presidency Magis-
trate and furnished bail. 
Thereafter, the case was 
transferred to M. Roy, the Presidency Magistrate 5th 
Court for further proceedings. 
• 
On the 10th October, 1960, copies of the docu-
ments were furnished to the accused persons, and 
since the record was voluminous, the hearing of the 
case was. adjourned to the 7th December, 1960. 
On 
the 1st March, 1961, parties were heard and in view 
of the nature of the offences and the amounts involved, 
t 
... 
' 
, 
I S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
3 
the 
Magistrate took the 
view that the proper 
course to follow would be to adopt the commitment 
proceedings as laid down in s. 207 A of the Code. 
Subsequently, the procedure prescribed by the said 
section was followed. 
It appears that accused No. 1 
who had in the meanwhile been convicted in another 
case was undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in 
the District Jail at Kanpur and so, he could not be 
produced before the Magistrate until the 7th July, 
1961. That is why the case had to be adjourned on 
some occasions and effective hearings did not make a 
material progress until the 7th July. 
On the 6th July, 1961, the respondent filed a 
petition before the Magistrate alleging that amongst 
the documentary evidence sought to be relied upon 
against him by the prosecution were included three 
cheques and the prosecution case was that the writing 
on the cheques wa

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