Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1910 DIGILAW 325 (MAD)

Untitled judgment

1910-05-02

SANKARAN NAIR

body1910
ORDER Sankaran Nair, J. 1. It seem to be clear that the petition said to have been presented by one of the accused to the Deputy Magistrate ought to have been received in evidence. 2. If the letter alleged to have been written by some of the prosecution witnesses would show that the evidence now given is unreliable, then the accused ought to have been allowed to recall those prosecution witnesses to be examined about that letter. I, therefore, set aside the judgment in appeal, direct the Sessions Judge to cause the production of the petition by the Deputy Magistrate, re-call and examine the prosecution witnesses about the letter alleged to have been written by them and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.