Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.

Calcutta High Court
Manick Lall Seal vs Gopal Lall Seal on 12 January, 1897
Equivalent citations: (1897) ILR 24 Cal 288
Author: G A Gordon
Bench: Ghose, Gordon


Ghose and Gordon, JJ.

1. No cause has been shewn against this rule; but the Magistrate has submitted an explanation which we have considered. We think that under the circumstances disclosed in the affidavit, and to a great extent admitted by the Magistrate, the order of discharge ought to be set aside.

2. We desire to say at the same time that the Magistrate was wrong in not allowing the petitioner to cross-examine Nayanmunjari, when she was in the box. There is nothing in Section 165 of the Evidence Act debarring or disqualifying a party to a proceeding from cross-examining any witness called By the Court. All that Section 165 says is that a party to a proceeding should not be allowed to cross-examine a witness upon an answer given by him to a question put by the Court without the permission of such Court. In this connection, we need only direct the attention of the Magistrate to the cases of Tarini Charan Chowdhry v. Saroda Svndari Dasi 3 B. L. R. A. C. 145 (158) and The Empress v. Grish Chunder Talukdar J. L. R. 5 Cal. 614.

3. The rule will therefore be made absolute on these terms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

103 queries in 0.194 seconds.