In Re: Kottammal Kalathingal Ummar Hajee

Oldfield, J.—These two appeals can be decided on the same preliminary point. To take first, Appeal No. 581 of 1922 the accused

(appellant) has been convicted of various offences in connection with the Moplah rebellion. In the first instance he and his father were placed in trial

together before the Special Judge, Mr. Edgington. But after the trial had proceeded for sometime, it was decided to hold two separate trials. Mr.

Edgington then began the trial of the present accused and, rather unnecessarily so far as we can see, exhibited the evidence already given at the

joint trial, instead of treating it as given for the purpose of the trial of accused, whether alone or jointly. That, however, is not the point,, with which

we are concerned. What we are concerned with is that Mr. Edgington ceased to be the Judge, beforj ''.he trial of the accused was concluded,

being succeeded by Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson apparently on his own initiative, decided to hold the trial denovo. He did not apparently notice that

the course he adopted, the exhibition of the witnesses'' depositions in the previous trial without actually examining them denovo deprived the

accused and himself of any advantage which the denovo proceedings would have secured. We however have to decide whether there was an

irregularity, which makes it our duty to order a new trial.

The general rule as stated in 2 Hawkins''s Please of the Crown, Chapter 46, is that "" in cases of life no evidence is to be given against a prisoner,

but in his presence"". That rule is followed in this country and has been extended under our Codes to all criminal trials. It is assumed in the directions

regarding different kinds of trials in the Criminal Procedure Code that the witnesses are examined viva voce in the course of the trial ; and this has

been recognised frequently in judicial decisions for instance in The Queen v. Bishonath Pal (1869) 12 W.R. Crl. R. 3 and more recent cases to be

referred to. No doubt departures from it are permitted, but only (so far as we have been shown) under some explicit provision of law, for instance,

in cases in which it is difficult or impossible to secure the presence of a witness or u/s 145 to contradict the witness''s evidence at the trial or u/s

157 to corroborate it ; and there is also the class of cases covered by Section 288, Criminal Procedure Code. But none of these provisions has

any application to what happened in the case before us, in which to anticipate the reference to a statement of the accuseds'' vakil to be found in the

record, one witness''s previous deposition was filed ""in order to save cross-examination"". We must therefore hold that there has been a deviation

from the normal course of procedure which would ordinarily vitiate the proceedings.

The question is however whether that deviation is cured by the consent of the accused. There is no doubt nothing on the record to show that the

accused or the three vakils, by whom he was represented, consented explicitly to it. We find however in the record of the short examintation of the

3rd prosecution witness at the conclusion of Ex. D, his previous statement, that a copy of that previous statement was filed "" at the request of the

vakil for the accused to save cross-examination again"". There is further the omission to take any obejection to the procedure at the trial as a ground

of appeal in this Court and such omission, although we do not allow it to stand in the way of the accused raising the point, is significant with

reference to his attitude and the attitude of his advisers in the lower court. We therefore hold that there was an implied consent by the accused to

the admission of the copies of the witness''s previous depositions of the prosecution witnesses instead of their being examined in full at the trial.

Next we have to consider whether the accused''s consent cures this irregularity. It has lately been held in Jainab Bibi Saheba v. Hyderally Sahib

38 M.L.J. 532, that such a consent would cure a similar irregularity in a civil suit. But that is not the rule in criminal matters. As regards them we

have a clear decision of the Privy Council in Reg v. Betirand (1869) 12 W.R. (Crl. R. 3) in which ""the common understanding in the profession

that a prisoner can consent to nothing"" is referred to in connection with consent to an irregularity very similar to that now under consideration; and

may be added that very comprehensive reasons are given by the Judicial Committee in support of its insistence on the evidence in criminal trials

being taken viva voce. This decision was followed, the principle in it being fully adopted in The Queen v. Bishonoth Pal (1911) 12 Cal. W.N. 140

, already referred to, in The Deputy Legal Remembrancer v. Upendra Kamar Ghosh ILR (1915) Mad. 449 , and in Re Annavi Muthi-riyan . It

may therefore be taken that, although the IndianLaw of Evidence was enacted in 1872, the judgment of the Privy Council has been accepted as

stating the law applicable in this country-although it was pronounced in 1867. In In re Annavi Muthirian Seshagiri Iyer, J. no doubt held that there

was nothing in Reg v. Bertrand (1869) 12 W.R. (Crl. R. 3), or in the principle therein enunciated precluding the Judge hearing the case on appeal

from deciding whether, notwithstanding the consent of the accused, his case has been prejudiced by the irregularity. We can say only that the Privy

Council restricted the discretion of the appellate court in such circumstances within very narrow limits, since their Lordships said that they would (if

necessary) have interfered in the case before them although they were not able to affirm or deny the inconveniences apprehended to have in fact

happened in the trial then in question, "" because it was one of the evils incident to the cause that made such affirmation and denial equally

impossible "", and excluded only from their decision cases in which part of the previous deposition accepted in lieu of oral evidence was"" so

unequivocally formal or very short "" as to make then-remarks inapplicable. With all respect it is therefore impossible to recognise the existence of

any such general discretion as was contemplated by Seshagiri Iyer, J.

Reference has also been made before us to Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act. But that section cannot affect the considerations, on which

the Privy Council proceeded. The application of the provisions could be only to leave with us the decision whether, if all the depositions in the

previous trial, which were irregularly admitted, were expunged from the record, there would remain independently of those depositions sufficient

evidence to justify the conviction. We have considered whether we can come to any such conclusion; and we find that we cannot, because the

exclusion of those previous depositions, consisting as they do both in cross-examination and in examination in chief, would leave us with a record,

which represents no enquiry conducted fairly or with full appreciation at the time on the part of either side of what had been or remained to be

proved. We cannot deal judicially with a record compiled after such a process of elimination, when it is clear that we have no security for accused

having foreseen the effect of his consent on the trial as a whole,

In these circumstances the only course is to set aside the conviction of the accused appellant and direct that he be retried, the evidence of all the

witnesses being taken viva voce and their previous depositions being admitted only if their admission is justified by law.

In R.T. No. 64 of 22 corresponding with Crl. Appeal. Appeals Nos. 585 and 769 of 22 the same objection has been taken, and our order

must be the same.