Case Details

Citation(s)
1965 SLG 4617 = 1965 SLD 4617 = 1965 PLD 150
Dacca High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 81 and 87 of 1964, decided on 28th September 1964.  
Presented By: A. S. Chowdhury and Abu Muhammad Abdulla, JJ  
  Haji Sultan Ahmed and others v. The State 16 D L R 325 and Ahmad and others v. Crown P L D 1950 Lah. 280 overruled.   Gushtasab Khan v. The Crown P L D 1956 F C 117 rel.   A. T. Sadi for Petitioners.   Abdul Hakim, Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the State.

KEFATULLAH PRAMANIK AND OTHERS-Petitioners  

VERSUS

  THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Opposite-Party   AND   ARSHED ALI MONDAL-Petitioner   versus   THE STATE-Opposite-Party  

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 526,556

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),   Ss. 556 & 526 Magistrate recording statement of person under apprehension of death but ultimately surviving-Deemed witness and "personally interested" in prosecution-Not competent to try case himself Transfer of case to another Court ordered.   Where a Judge is the sole Judge of the law and fact in a case tried before himself, he cannot give evidence before himself ox import matters in his judgment not stated on oath before the Court in the presence of the accused. If he does so, he makes himself a witness in the case and renders himself incompetent to try it. In no circumstances should a case be allowed to proceed in a Court where the parties may have reasonable apprehension in their minds that they would not have a fair trial. It is essential that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. It is true that, by reason of the Explanation appended to the provisions of section 556 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, there would be no legal necessity to transfer the case to some other Magistrate even in a ease in which an enquiry is held by the Magistrate who is trying the case but there may be instances in which it would be advisable to direct a transfer.   Where, therefore, a Magistrate trying a case had recorded statement of a person who was under apprehension of death as a result of the injury inflicted on him but did not, as a matter of fact, ultimately die, it was held that the Magistrate trying the case was a witness and could be said to be personally interested in the prosecution. The case was, therefore, transferred from his Court to the Court of another Magistrate on an application moved under section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.   Thachroth Hydross and others (prisoners in re.) A I R 1923 Mad. 694 and Ahmad Yar Khan v. Emperor 11 Cr. L J 171 distinguished.   Nga Chit So v. The King 39 Cr. L J 117; Ghassoo v. Emperor A I R 1930 All. 737; Ghulam Rasul and others v. Crown P L D 1951 F C 62 and Mangni Lal Marwari v. Emperor A I R 1918 Pat. 373 ref.   (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),   Ss. 496 & 497 Bail-Discretion to grant or…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register