High CourtsSingle Bench

Queen-Empress vs Solomon

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 23 July 1890 · Citation: (1890) ILR (Cal) 931

HON’BLE JUDGES
Wilson, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (CrPC) — Section 292
Ask AI about this case

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

3 paragraphs · 197 words

Wilson, J.—The question raised now is one which I think I am bound to answer at this stage, in fairness to those who have the responsibility of conducting the case for the prosecution and for the defence, namely, whether, in the events which have happened down to this stage, the Crown is entitled to a reply, This seems to me to depend solely on the provisions of Section 292* of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Independently of authority I should have thought that it did not give the Crown the right of reply. It only gives the right when the accused has stated, in reply to the question put to him u/s 289, that he means to adduce evidence. I further think it is my duty to follow the decisions of this Court rather than that of the Madras High Court. I hold, therefore, that up to this stage of the case nothing has happened which gives the Crown a right of reply.

* Prosecutor''s right of reply.

[Section 292: If the accused, or any of the accused, has stated when asked u/s 289, that he means to adduce evidence, the prosecutor shall be entitled to reply.]