1928 JTR(Mad) 435
1929 AIR(Mad) 260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Jackson
O.S. Venkatasubba Ayyar
Versus
T.M. Soundraraja Ayyangar
Decided On : 6 December, 1928
Proceedings must be de novo if an accused is discharged due to the non-appearance of the complainant, and subsequent trial proceedings cannot carry over evidence from the first case.
Discharge - Absence of Complainant - Section 259, Criminal P.C. - Proceedings must be de novo
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was discharged due to complainant's absence. The trial proceeded without any evidence being recorded.
Finding of the Court:
The Magistrate was asked to proceed de novo, and the only irregularity was the failure to take a sworn statement, which did not prejudice the accused.
Issues: Discharge due to complainant's absence, subsequent trial without recording evidence, and failure to take a sworn statement.
Ratio Decidendi: If a Magistrate discharges an accused due to the non-appearance of the complainant and subsequently excuses that non-appearance, the proceedings must be de novo. No evidence recorded in the first case can be carried over to the second case.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the accused was not prejudiced by the irregularity.
Discharge - Absence of Complainant - Section 259, Criminal P.C. - Proceedings must be de novo
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was discharged due to complainant's absence. The trial proceeded without any evidence being recorded.
Finding of the Court:
The Magistrate was asked to proceed de novo, and the only irregularity was the failure to take a sworn statement, which did not prejudice the accused.
Issues: Discharge due to complainant's absence, subsequent trial without recording evidence, and failure to take a sworn statement.
Ratio Decidendi: If a Magistrate discharges an accused due to the non-appearance of the complainant and subsequently excuses that non-appearance, the proceedings must be de novo. No evidence recorded in the first case can be carried over to the second case.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the accused was not prejudiced by the irregularity.
ORDER
Jackson, J.
1. Petitioner was discharged because of complainants absence. The complaint was then taken up again and the trial proceeded and it is urged that this was illegal. If a Magistrate discharges an accused because of the non-appearance of the complainant under Section 259, Criminal P.C., and Subsequently excuses that nonappearance he must proceed de novo. None of the evidence recorded in the first can be carried over to the second case.
2. In this case no evidence had been recorded. The Magistrate was asked to proceed de novo, and his only irregularity lay in his failing to take a sworn statement. I cannot see that accused was prejudiced by this irregularity and dismiss the petition.