BIBHUTI BHUSAN DAS GUPTA AND ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

BIBHUTI BHUSAN DAS GUPTA AND ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Section 342 CrPC requires personal examination of the accused; the privilege and duty cannot be delegated to a pleader. However, mere non-examination or defective examination under Section 342 is not a ground for interference unless prejudice is established. No prejudice was proved in this case, so conviction stands.

Parties
Appellant: Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta; Appellant: Ram Chandra Adhikari; Respondent: State of West Bengal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 September 1968
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Decided by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Procedure Under Section 342 Cr PC, Examination of Accused, Conviction for Defamation, Delegation of Rights to Pleader, Irregularity and Prejudice in Trial
Criminal Law Procedure Under Section 342 Cr PC Examination of Accused Conviction for Defamation Delegation of Rights to Pleader Irregularity and Prejudice in Trial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta

Appellant

Ram Chandra Adhikari

Appellant

State of West Bengal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Decided by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a pleader can represent the accused for purposes of Section 342, CrPC
  2. 2 Whether examination of pleader is sufficient compliance with Section 342 where personal attendance is dispensed with
  3. 3 Whether mere non-examination or defective examination under Section 342 vitiates the trial

Ratio Decidendi

Section 342 CrPC requires personal examination of the accused; the privilege and duty cannot be delegated to a pleader. However, mere non-examination or defective examination under Section 342 is not a ground for interference unless prejudice is established. No prejudice was proved in this case, so conviction stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • No interference with conviction and sentence.