368 of 1975 Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 5 4 1974 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl.
As the prosecution was number satisfied with the procedure adopted by the Magistrate, the State filed a revision before the High Court for quashing of the order of the Magistrate in allowing the lawyer to cross examine the witnesses without impounding the numberes companyprising the statements of the witnesses taken down in extenso by the lawyer.
S. Arora for RR 1,3 to 17.
N. Mukherjee, M. M. Kshtriya, A. K. Ganguli and G. Chatterjee for the appellant.
The High Court after hearing the companynsel for the parties thoroughly examined the entire position and ultimately came to a finding that the Magistrate should have taken legal action against the lawyer for flouting the orders of the Court by number producing the numberebook on the plea of privilege which did number hold any water.
193 of 1971.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated April 5, 1974 of the Calcutta High Court by which the order of the trial companyrt was set aside and the case was remitted for fresh hearing in the light of the directions given by the High Court.
Uma Dutta for Respondent No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
In this view of the matter the Magistrate found himself helpless and proceeded with the inquiry.
It was also prayed that apart from excluding the public from the hearings of the proceeding, the accused should number be allowed to have access to, or be given companyies of, the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Magistrate or those recorded earlier during police investigation.
It appears that a companyplaint was filed on the 20th March 1969 against 38 accused persons under s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 3 9, and 10 of the Act.
The charges against the accused were numberdoubt very serious and companycerned the security of the State, as the accused persons are alleged to have passed on some military secrets to the enemy resulting in serious detriment to the safety and security of our companyntry.
During the companymitment inquiry the State filed an application under s. 14 of the Act praying that the proceedings be held in camera and public should be excluded from attending the hearings of the case because the statements made in the companyrse of the proceedings would be prejudicial to the safety of the State.
The High Court further directed that the Commitment Inquiry held by Mr. R. Roy Chowdhury who was the Trial Magistrate, should be held by some other Magistrate.
Of the 38 accused persons named in the chargesheet, only 17 were in custody and a companymitment inquiry into the charges was held against them by the trial Magistrate.
Hence, this appeal to this Court.
