1963 (12) TMI 34 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to examine the accused under Section 207-A(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
2. Interpretation of the term "evidence" in Section 207-A(6) of the CrPC.
3. Impact of the examination of the accused on the accused's rights and the judicial process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to Examine the Accused under Section 207-A(6) of the CrPC:

The primary issue in this judgment was whether the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to examine the accused under Section 207-A(6) of the CrPC when no oral evidence has been recorded under Section 207-A(4). The appellants contended that the Magistrate could only examine the accused based on oral evidence recorded under Section 207-A(4) and not on documents furnished under Section 173(4). The Court reviewed the provisions of Section 207-A and concluded that the Magistrate does have the power to examine the accused if he deems it necessary to enable the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, which includes both oral evidence and documents referred to in Section 173(4).

2. Interpretation of the Term "Evidence" in Section 207-A(6) of the CrPC:

The Court examined the term "evidence" as used in Section 207-A(6) and determined that it is not restricted to oral evidence recorded under Section 207-A(4). The judgment emphasized that the term "evidence" includes both oral evidence and documentary evidence referred to in Section 173(4). The Court reasoned that the Legislature did not intend to limit the examination of the accused to oral evidence alone, as the purpose of the examination is to enable the accused to explain any circumstances appearing against him, which could arise from both oral and documentary evidence.

3. Impact of the Examination of the Accused on the Accused's Rights and the Judicial Process:

The Court considered the implications of examining the accused based on documentary evidence. It was argued that such an examination could lead to prejudice against the accused, as the documents might not be formally proved at the enquiry stage. However, the Court held that the examination of the accused is intended to benefit the accused by providing an opportunity to explain any adverse circumstances. The Court also noted that the accused is not compelled to answer questions during this examination, and no adverse inference can be drawn from the accused's refusal to answer.

Separate Judgment by Ayyangar, J.:

Ayyangar, J. dissented from the majority view, arguing that the term "evidence" in Section 207-A(6) should be limited to oral evidence recorded under Section 207-A(4). He emphasized that the examination of the accused should be based solely on judicial evidence, i.e., oral evidence tested by cross-examination, and not on unproved documentary evidence. He expressed concerns about the potential prejudice to the accused if examined based on unproved documents and highlighted that the legislative intent was to avoid such prejudice.

Conclusion:

The majority judgment held that the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to examine the accused under Section 207-A(6) based on both oral and documentary evidence. The examination is intended to provide the accused with an opportunity to explain any adverse circumstances, and the term "evidence" includes documents referred to in Section 173(4). The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Magistrate's power to examine the accused in this manner. However, Ayyangar, J. dissented, arguing for a narrower interpretation of "evidence" and cautioning against potential prejudice to the accused.