Queen-Empress vs Riding and Others

John Edge, Kt., C.J.—Said that he was of opinion that the deposition was inadmissible in evidence. u/s 509 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it was essential that the deposition should have been "taken and attested by a Magistrate in the presence of the accused." Since the prosecution was bound to prove every step of the case against the prisoners, before such a deposition could be admitted it must either appear on the Magistrate''s record, or must be proved, by the evidence of witnesses, to have been taken and attested in the prisoners'' presence. His Lordship had been referred to Section 114, illustration (e) of the Evidence Act; but that section did not direct the Court to presume the existence of facts likely to have happened, such as the regular performance of judicial nets, but left the Court free to make the presumption or not according to its discretion. This being a criminal case in which, as he had said, the prosecution must prove every step of its case, he did not think it proper or expedient to act on a presumption that the requirements of Section 509 had been complied with, and he therefore ruled that the deposition should not be admitted.