Abdul Rahman V. Emperor

1927 (29) BOM LR 813”

CASE: “Abdul Rahman V. Emperor 1927 (29) BOM LR 813” 

FACTS 

One individual named Mani Iyer filed a bankruptcy petition in the High Court of Rangoon  against the firm called D.K. Cassim & Sons. The allegation stated that the firm had allowed  certain immovable properties to remain attached for more than three weeks, which was  considered an act of insolvency. 

During the hearing of the petition, it was revealed that the orders for attachment had been issued  on November 19 and 21, 1923. However, the execution of the attachment took place on the  27th of that month. Furthermore, the attachment had been discharged within three weeks of the  execution date, although it exceeded three weeks from the initial attachment order on the 19th.  Therefore, it was determined that there was no act of insolvency. 

However, it came to light that the dates of execution on the warrants had been altered from the  27th to the 20th and 21st in an attempt to support the petition. Upon discovering this alteration,  the court initiated criminal proceedings against both Mani Iyer and Abdul Rahman, the  applicant at the time. 

After carefully considering all the presented evidence, the District Magistrate found the  accused guilty and imposed a punishment. The accused then appealed the decision, but the  High Court upheld the conviction. 

LEGAL ISSUE: 

1. Whether not informing the accused that he has an entitlement of choosing the judge of  his choice who may try the accused will make a case for quashing the conviction. 2. Whether by not reading the statement of the witnesses loudly in the court will make a  case for quashing the conviction of the accused. 

ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER: 

1. That he was not informed of having an entitlement to choose the judge from whom he  desires to be tried: this is given under section 191 CrPC. 

2. The second argument was that one of accused clerk, Narayan, had stated on affidavit  that District Magistrate was not turn by turn examining the deposition of the witnesses:  while the statement of not knowing English Language speaker was being read out by  the interpreter for the purpose of verification, the statement of English-speaking 

witnesses were being recorded; and the statements of English-speaking witnesses were  handed over to them, who read the statement silently to themselves. This all denied the  accused the right to know about the content of the statement recorded. 

ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDENT: 

1. Regarding the first argument, it should be highlighted that when a Magistrate takes  cognizance of an offense under Sub-section (1), Clause (c) of the preceding section, the 

accused must be informed before any evidence is taken that they have the right to  choose another court for the trial. If the accused, or any of the accused if there are  multiple, objects to being tried by that Magistrate, the case will be committed to the  Court of Session or transferred to another Magistrate. In the present case, the District  Magistrate took cognizance under sub-section (1), clause (a) of section 190 of the  Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Therefore, there was no requirement to inform the  accused about their entitlement to choose a judge of their choice for the trial. 

2. Regarding the second contention raised by the petitioner in the appeal, it should be  noted that it does not state and cannot state that the accused or their advocate raised any  objection to the course of action taken. It does not mention whether the accused suffered  any prejudice or if there were any necessary corrections to the evidence that any witness  or the accused or their advocate could have suggested if all the depositions had been  read out loud to the witnesses and the accused, and if required, translated. 

JUDGMENT: 

The established rule, consistently upheld, is that the higher authority will not review or interfere  with criminal proceedings unless it is demonstrated that a significant and serious injustice has  occurred due to a disregard for legal procedures, violation of natural justice principles, or  similar circumstances. 

Regarding one objection raised on behalf of the accused, a careful examination of the section  reveals that the purpose of reading over the deposition is to obtain an accurate record of the  witness’s intended statement and allow them an opportunity to correct any inaccuracies in the  transcription made by the Magistrate or their clerk. It is not intended to grant the accused or  their advocate the chance to suggest amendments. 

Undoubtedly, the evidence must be read over in the presence of the accused or their pleader.  The accused is entitled to ensure that the deposition has been read and that the witness had an  opportunity to rectify any errors in the written record. However, the accused is not necessarily  entitled to suggest corrections. Their Lordships are of the opinion that, based on a strict  interpretation of the relevant sections of the Code, there was no violation of their provisions in  the manner in which the depositions of witnesses were read over to them, as described earlier. 

In summary, according to the understanding of their Lordships regarding the various sections  of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a mere omission or irregularity, such as the one that  occurred in the case being appealed, without any substantial suggestion of a resulting failure  of justice, is insufficient grounds to invalidate a conviction.

written by Tarun Verma intern under legal vidhiya

Admin