Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 77

12.5. Recommendation in 41st Report.-

We may also mention that the Law Commission in its Forty-first Report,1 had also made similar observation when it observed, after referring to section 330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898, corresponding to section 326 of the new Code:-

"The section is confined to cases in Magistrate's courts, and is inapplicable to the Courts of Session, we have considered the advisability of extending this rule to Sessions cases, as we understand that sometimes Sessions Judges are transferred, leaving behind part-heard cases which have to he heard all over again. It would be an ideal position if suet transfer did not take place, as Sessions cases are to be heard from day-to-day and decided within a few days.

It is obviously desirable that in serious cases the whole evidence should be heard by the Judge who finally decides the case. However, having regard to the realities of the situation, it is necessary to make some provision for cases where such transfers do take place, because a mandatory provision for a de novo trial may often cause considerable inconvenience and hardship. We, therefore, propose to extend the section to Judges of Sessions Courts by referring to 'Judge or Magistrate' instead of 'Magistrate only'."

1. 41st, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Vol.1, para. 2477.

Delay and Arrears in Trial Courts Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys