AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 132 wordsOdgers, J.—The only point is, whether the prosecution witnesses ought to have been allowed to be cross-examined. I think the point taken
for the accused must succeed The Magistrate having allowed the prosecution witnesses to be recalled as defence witnesses u/s 257, Criminal
Procedure Code, must clearly have allowed them to be cross-examined by the accused. There is no finding that the application should not have
been allowed as vexatious or dilatory. The cases which support accused''s position are Mawla Bux Biswas v. Derasatulla Sarkar 10. W.N. 19 and
Sheoprakash Singh v.Rawlins 28 C. 594. Both cases decide that prosecution witnesses summoned under these circumstances, do not change their
character and may be cross-examined by the accused. The convictions must be set aside end the case remitted for re-trial according to law.