STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus TULSIDAS MUNDHRA

STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus TULSIDAS MUNDHRA

Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to proceedings under section 207A and is not excluded by the latter's scheme; however, an accused is not entitled to lead evidence in defence in such proceedings, and Magistrate is not bound to examine the accused person unless necessary. On the facts, the Magistrate properly exercised his discretion in rejecting the application to examine defence witnesses as vexatious and intended to delay proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: State of West Bengal; Respondent: Tulsidas Mundhra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 September 1962
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From an Order of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside; Magistrate's order restored.
Legal Topics
Commitment Proceedings, Examination of Witnesses, Court's Power Under S.540 Cr PC, Application of S.540 to S.207 a Proceedings
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Commitment Proceedings Examination of Witnesses Court's Power Under S.540 Cr PC Application of S.540 to S.207 a Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of West Bengal

Appellant

Tulsidas Mundhra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From an Order of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to proceedings under section 207A of the Code
  2. 2 Whether the Magistrate is bound to examine the accused person under s.207A(6)
  3. 3 Whether the accused is entitled to lead evidence in his defence in proceedings under s.207A

Ratio Decidendi

Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to proceedings under section 207A and is not excluded by the latter's scheme; however, an accused is not entitled to lead evidence in defence in such proceedings, and Magistrate is not bound to examine the accused person unless necessary. On the facts, the Magistrate properly exercised his discretion in rejecting the application to examine defence witnesses as vexatious and intended to delay proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside; Magistrate's order restored.

Orders

  • Order of the High Court set aside.
  • Order of the Magistrate dated 7th July, 1961 restored.