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.

Adyan Sing Vs. Queen-empres

Adyan Sing vs Queen-empres

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 30, 1886
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/867390

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Discharge of accused--Further enquiry and order of commitment passed simultaneously by Sessions Judge--Depositions not read over to accused--Oral evidence--Statement of Mooktear as to faulty record--Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1882), Section 360--Evidence Act (I of 1872), Section 91. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Adyan Sing

Respondent

Queen-empres

Legal References

Reported In
(1886)ILR13Cal121

Excerpt

discharge of accused--further enquiry and order of commitment passed simultaneously by sessions judge--depositions not read over to accused--oral evidence--statement of mooktear as to faulty record--criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), section 360--evidence act (i of 1872), section 91. - ordero'kinealy and agnew, jj.1. in this case the prisoner has been convicted of causing grievous hurt and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 200. on his trial before the sessions judge of patna, whilst certain of the witnesses were under cross-examination, their depositions before the committing officer were tendered in evidence in. order to contradict what they were then saying.2. no objection was taken to the reception in evidence of these depositions by the crown; but the sessions judge, because a mooktear in court, who is 'said to have conducted the case in the lower court on behalf of the accused, made a general statement that the committing officer was not in the habit of reading over depositions to the witnesses, himself raised the objection, and refused to receive the evidence tendered on behalf, of the prisoner. we think that he was wrong in doing so. there was no ground on which he could refuse the depositions. further, we think that if he had refused them rightly, the prisoner should not have been debarred from calling the assistant magistrate for examination.3. we set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the prisoner be re-tried.

Full Judgment

ORDER

O'Kinealy and Agnew, JJ.

1. In this case the prisoner has been convicted of causing grievous hurt and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. On his trial before the Sessions Judge of Patna, whilst certain of the witnesses were under cross-examination, their depositions before the committing officer were tendered in evidence in. order to contradict what they were then saying.

2. No objection was taken to the reception in evidence of these depositions by the Crown; but the Sessions Judge, because a Mooktear in Court, who is 'said to have conducted the case in the lower Court on behalf of the accused, made a general statement that the committing officer was not in the habit of reading over depositions to the witnesses, himself raised the objection, and refused to receive the evidence tendered on behalf, of the prisoner. We think that he was wrong in doing so. There was no ground on which he could refuse the depositions. Further, we think that if he had refused them rightly, the prisoner should not have been debarred from calling the Assistant Magistrate for examination.

3. We set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the prisoner be re-tried.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial