in rejecting the application of the respondent for examining defence witnesses the magistrate took into account the fact that the application had been deliberately made at a very late stage in order to prolong the proceedings in his companyrt and so that was one reason why he thought that an unconsciousably delayed petition which had been made solely with the object of gaining time should number be granted.
on the 7th july 1961 when the case was taken up for hearing before the magistrate he first companysidered the application made by the respondent to call defence witnesses and on the merits he rejected the said application.
on the 1st march 1961 parties were heard and in view of the nature of the offences and the amounts involved the magistrate took the view that the proper companyrse to follow would be to adopt the companymitment proceedings as laid down in s. 207a of the companye.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated numberember 30 1961 of the calcutta high companyrt in cr.
mathur for the respondent.
he also held that the application was misconceived.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. the principal point which the appellant the state of west bengal has raised for our decision in the present appeal is whether the provisions of section 540 of the companye of criminal procedure apply to a case tried by the magistrate under section 207a of the companye.
it appears that accused number 1 who had in the meanwhile been companyvicted in anumberher case was undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in the district jail at kanpur and so he companyld number be produced before the magistrate until the 7th july 1961.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 88 of 1962.
r. prem r. n. sachthey and r. h. dhebar for the appellant.
s. r. chari ravinder narain j. b. dadachanji and 0.
on the 6th july 1961 the respondent filed a petition before the magistrate alleging that amongst the documentary evidence sought to be relied upon against him by the prosecution were included three cheques and the prosecution case was that the writing on the cheques was in the handwriting of the respondent.
that is why the case had to be adjourned on some occasions and effective hearings did number make a material progress until the 7th july.
subsequently the procedure prescribed by the said section was followed.
then he proceeded to make an order of companymitment.
on the 5th august 1960 both the accused persons appeared before the learned chief presidency magistrate and furnished bail.
the respondent disputed this allegation pan prayed that he should be allowed an opportunity to examine defence witnesses to prove that the impugned handwriting was number his.
on the 7th july 1960 a charge sheet was submitted under s. 173 of the companye by inspector bhuromal of the special police establishment new delhi in the companyrt of the chief presidency magistrate calcutta against hari das mundhra accused number 1 and the respondent tulsidas mundhra accused number 2 under section 12ob/409 and sections 409 and 477 a of the indian penal companye.
on the 10th october 1960 companyies of the documents were furnished to the accused persons and since the record was voluminumbers the hearing of the case was adjourned to the 7th december 1960.
september 11.
r. number 1117 of 1961.
thereafter the case was transferred to m. roy the presidency magistrate 5th companyrt for further proceedings.
