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.

Manik Vs. King Emperor

Manik vs King Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Mar 12, 1925
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/859087

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
Kolkata
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manik

Respondent

King Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1925Cal933

Excerpt

- 1. no one appears to oppose this rule. it appears that at the hearing of the case before the committing magistrate though the depositions of the witnesses were read over to them as, required by section 360, criminal procedure, code but this was done while the other witnesses were being examined. this we have held is not sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 360, criminal procedure code, since the object of that section is that the accused may have the opportunity of ascertaining that the evidence has been correctly recorded. this is of great importance in an enquiry with a view to commitment, since under certain circumstances the evidence then taken may be used as evidence against him at the trial. the objection was taken in the sessions court before the accused was called in to plead. under these circumstances we think we shall make the rule absolute, and we accordingly quash the commitment of the petitioner and direct that the case be reheard before the committing magistrate according to law.

Full Judgment

1. No one appears to oppose this Rule. It appears that at the hearing of the case before the committing Magistrate though the depositions of the witnesses were read over to them as, required by Section 360, Criminal Procedure, Code but this was done while the other witnesses were being examined. This we have held is not sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code, since the object of that section is that the accused may have the opportunity of ascertaining that the evidence has been correctly recorded. This is of great importance in an enquiry with a view to commitment, since under certain circumstances the evidence then taken may be used as evidence against him at the trial. The objection was taken in the Sessions Court before the accused was called in to plead. Under these circumstances we think we shall make the rule absolute, and we accordingly quash the commitment of the petitioner and direct that the case be reheard before the committing Magistrate according to law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial