Sukheswar Phukan Vs. Emperor

Sukheswar Phukan vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 16, 1911

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/856486

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/856486
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Caspersz; and Sharfuddin, JJ.
Decided On: Jun 16, 1911
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Warrant - Witness--Rescuing from lawful custody--Warrant against a witness issued in the first instance without recording reasons in writing--Legality of warrant and arrest--Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) Section 225B--Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898) Section 90, Schedule V, Form VII--Practice. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sukheswar Phukan

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: (1911)ILR38Cal789

Excerpt

warrant - witness--rescuing from lawful custody--warrant against a witness issued in the first instance without recording reasons in writing--legality of warrant and arrest--penal code (act xlv of 1860) section 225b--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) section 90, schedule v, form vii--practice. - .....have been convicted under section 225b of the indian penal code for resisting the execution of a certain warrant for the arrest of a witness, named musammat mahi, whose attendance was desired in the case, no. 610 of 1910. we granted this rule on the ground that the action of the court issuing the warrant of arrest was illegal, and vitiated the subsequent proceedings including the conviction of the petitioners for resisting an invalid process. the warrant was issued under section 90 of the criminal procedure code which provides that the court must record its reasons in writing before adopting that extreme measure. it appears from the order sheet of the case, no. 610 of 1910, that no summons was issued on musammat mahi. warrant was ordered in the first instance. that procedure appears to have been illegal inasmuch as, on the face of the order sheet, no reasons were recorded by the court issuing the warrant. nor has the magistrate submitted any explanation to elucidate the matter.2. on the warrant itself there is a printed form, in accordance with form no. vii of schedule v of the code of criminal procedure, reciting that 'whereas i have good and sufficient reasons to believe, that he (the witness) will not attend as a witness on the hearing of the said complaint unless compelled to do so,' but the natural meaning of section 90 is that the court should record its reasons in writing. the adoption of a stereotyped printed form is, in our opinion, not a sufficient compliance with the imperative language of the section. the printed form may be intended for the information of the person whom it is sought to arrest. but that is a different matter. we think, therefore, that the conviction is unsustainable.3. we may add, that the incident appears to have been greatly magnified. musammat mahi duly appeared in court and gave her evidence. the convictions and sentences are, there fore, set aside. we direct that the petitioners be discharged from bail. the rule is.....

Full Judgment

Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.

1. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code for resisting the execution of a certain warrant for the arrest of a witness, named Musammat Mahi, whose attendance was desired in the case, No. 610 of 1910. We granted this rule on the ground that the action of the Court issuing the warrant of arrest was illegal, and vitiated the subsequent proceedings including the conviction of the petitioners for resisting an invalid process. The warrant was issued under Section 90 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that the Court must record its reasons in writing before adopting that extreme measure. It appears from the order sheet of the case, No. 610 of 1910, that no summons was issued on Musammat Mahi. Warrant was ordered in the first instance. That procedure appears to have been illegal inasmuch as, on the face of the order sheet, no reasons were recorded by the Court issuing the warrant. Nor has the Magistrate submitted any explanation to elucidate the matter.

2. On the warrant itself there is a printed form, in accordance with Form No. VII of Schedule V of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reciting that 'whereas I have good and sufficient reasons to believe, that he (the witness) will not attend as a witness on the hearing of the said complaint unless compelled to do so,' but the natural meaning of Section 90 is that the Court should record its reasons in writing. The adoption of a stereotyped printed form is, in our opinion, not a sufficient compliance with the imperative language of the section. The printed form may be intended for the information of the person whom it is sought to arrest. But that is a different matter. We think, therefore, that the conviction is unsustainable.

3. We may add, that the incident appears to have been greatly magnified. Musammat Mahi duly appeared in Court and gave her evidence. The convictions and sentences are, there fore, set aside. We direct that the petitioners be discharged from bail. The rule is made absolute.

Same Parties Sukheswar Phukan vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Caspersz; and Sharfuddin, JJ.

Criminal Reasons to believe criminal procedure penal code In writing set aside To do so