LexTARA SINGH versus THE STATE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 729 appears to have been instituted to test the validity of a controversial measure and to secure a final decision on it to set at rest the doubts and uncertainties which may have clouded the minds of a section of the public as to how far the provisions of the Act conform to law and to the Chapter on Fundamental Rights in the pre- sent Constitution. PATANJALI SAsTR1 J.-1 agree and have nothing more to add. MuKHERJEA J.-1 have read the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Fazl Ali and I am in entire agreement with his conclusions and reasons. There is nothing further which I can usefully add. S. R. DAs J.-1 agree and I have nothing further to add. V1VIAN BosE J.-I also agree. Appeal No. 182 allowed. Appeal No. 183 dismissed. Agent for the appellants in Case No. 182 and res- pondents in Case No. 183 : P. A. Mehta~ . Agent for the respondent in Case No. 182 and appellant in Case No. 183 : Rajinder Narain for R. A. Gagrat. TARA SINGH v. THE STATE. [SAIYID FAZL ALI, PATANJALI SASTRI, S. R. DAs and VIVIAN BosE JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), ss. 173 (1), 190 (1) (b), 340 (1), 342, 288-Evidence Act (1 of 1872), s. 145-Filing of second challan-Whether vitiates first report-Examination of accused-Imp<>rtance of-Statements made in Committal Court- W hen admissible. Where the report made by a police officer to · the Magistrate complies with the requirements of s. 173 ( 1) of the Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate can take cognisance. of the case 1951 The State qf Bol1'bay and Another v. F. N. Balsara. Patanjali Sastri :J. Muklurjea :J. S. It. Das]. Vivian Bose J. 1951 June 1 1951 Tara Singh v. Tia• Stott 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1951] under s. 190 (1) (b) of the Code. The fact that a second challan was put in later would not necessarily vitiate the first and in- validate the proceedings taken before the second challan was submitted. The right conferred by s. 340 ( 1) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not · extend to a right in an accused person to be provided with a lawyer by the State or by the Police or by the Magistrate. That is a privilege given to him and it is his duty to ask for a law- yer if he wants to engage one, or to engage one himself, or get "his relations to engage one for him. The only duty cast on the ·Magistrate is to afford him the necessary opportunity. An accused should be properly examined under s. 342 of th.,. Code and, if a point in the evidence is considered important against the accused and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, then it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it if he so desires. This is an important and salutary provision and should not be slurred over. It is not a proper compliance of s. 342 to read out a long string of questions and answers made in the Committal Court and ask the accused whether the statement is correct. A question of that kind is misleading. In the next place, it is not sufficient compliance to string together a long series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say about them. He must be questioned separately about each material circumstance which is intended to be used against him. Dwark_anath v. Emperor (A.LR. 1933 P. C. 124) referred to. In view of the words "subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act" whith occur in s. 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the evidence given by a witness in the Committal Court can- not be used as substantive evidence in the Sessions· Court unle·ss the witness is confronted with those parts of his evidence which arc to be used for the purpose of contradicting him, even though if the only object of the prosecution is to discredit the evidence given in the Sessions Court by cross-examination him with reference to previous statements made in the Committal Court, it is not necessary to do so. CluMINAL APPELLATE JURiso1cnoN : Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1951. Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated the 6th June, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1950. Hardayal Hardy for the appellant. S. L. Chibber for the respondent. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 731 1951. June 1. The following Judgments were delivered. BosE J.-This is an appeal under arti:cle 136 (1) of the Constitution. The a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.