Palaniandy Gounden vs Emperor

We agree with the view taken of Section 350 of the Code in the recent decisions of the Calcutta High Court in The Deputy Legal

Remembrancer v. Upendra Kumar Ghose 12 C.W.N. 140; 6 Cr. L.J. 434, and in Mohesh Chandra Saha v. Emperor 35 Cal. 457;. 7 Cr. L.J.

220, where the learned Judges held that the words of that section are applicable to cases in which the case under enquiry or trial is withdrawn from

one Magistrate, who therefore ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is transferred to another. In this view the Deputy Magistrate''s procedure

in the present case was governed by Section 350, and he was not bound to re-hear all the prosecution witnesses. Nor was the accused, in our

opinion, entitled by virtue of proviso (a) to Section 350 to require a re-hearing of the evidence.

The case before the Magistrate was a ''register case or preliminary enquiry into an accusation of an offence triable exclusively by a Court of

Session. It was not in our opinion a trial before the charge is framed, but was an enquiry and therefore not provided for by proviso (a) to Section

Even if the case were treated by the Magistrate as a ''warrant case the accused is not prejudiced by this construction of the section, because

by sector 256 of the Code as soon as a charge is framed he can re-call for cross-examination all the prosecution witnesses whose evidence has

been taken; and therefore should the proceedings become a trial he has a right equivalent to that of demanding a de novo enquiry.

We dismiss the petition.