Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Queen-empress Vs. Dan Sahai

Queen-empress vs Dan Sahai

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 31, 1969
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/458268

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 288 - Trial before Court of Session--Evidence given before committing Magistrate used at trial to contradict witnesses. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Queen-empress

Respondent

Dan Sahai

Legal References

Reported In
(1885)ILR7All862

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, section 288 - trial before court of session--evidence given before committing magistrate used at trial to contradict witnesses. - straight, j.1. the judge has quite misunderstood the provisions of section 288 of the criminal procedure code. that section was never intended to be used so as to enable a court trying a cause to take a witness's deposition bodily from the magistrate's record, as the judge has done here, and to treat it as evidence before itself; and i entirely concur in the remarks made on this head by phear, j., in queen v. amanulla 12 b.l.r. app. 15. at any rate, the judge was bound to put to the witnesses he proposed to contradict by their former statements the whole or such portions of their depositions as he intended to rely upon in his decision, so as to afford them an opportunity of explaining their meaning, or denying that they had made any such statements, and so forth. the course adopted by the judge was contrary to practice, and inconsistent with all the rules regulating the admissibility of evidence, and phear, j., in the case mentioned above, has pointed out the mischief and dangers of such a mode of procedure.2. under the circumstances i cannot allow the conviction of dan sahai to stand, and, it being reversed, he is acquitted.

Full Judgment

Straight, J.

1. The Judge has quite misunderstood the provisions of Section 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section was never intended to be used so as to enable a Court trying a cause to take a witness's deposition bodily from the Magistrate's record, as the Judge has done here, and to treat it as evidence before itself; and I entirely concur in the remarks made on this head by Phear, J., in Queen v. Amanulla 12 B.L.R. App. 15. At any rate, the Judge was bound to put to the witnesses he proposed to contradict by their former statements the whole or such portions of their depositions as he intended to rely upon in his decision, so as to afford them an opportunity of explaining their meaning, or denying that they had made any such statements, and so forth. The course adopted by the Judge was contrary to practice, and inconsistent with all the rules regulating the admissibility of evidence, and Phear, J., in the case mentioned above, has pointed out the mischief and dangers of such a mode of procedure.

2. Under the circumstances I cannot allow the conviction of Dan Sahai to stand, and, it being reversed, he is acquitted.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial