Committal inquiry examination of the accused requires recorded oral evidence; documents alone do not authorise questioning.

In a committal inquiry under Section 207-A, the Supreme Court held that the accused could be examined only on circumstances appearing in oral evidence recorded under sub-section (4), not on documents furnished under Section 173(4) alone. The majority construed "the evidence" in Section 207-A(6) as referring to recorded oral evidence and read the scheme of Sections 207-A(7) and 251-A(2) as confirming that documentary material by itself did not authorise questioning of the accused. It was held that examination without recorded evidence would exceed the section and risk prejudice. The dissent treated "evidence" as including the supplied documents.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an inquiry for committal under Section 207-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate can examine the accused for the purpose of explaining circumstances appearing only in the documents furnished under Section 173(4) when no oral evidence has been recorded under Section 207-A(4).

Analysis: The majority held that Section 207-A draws a clear distinction between evidence recorded under sub-section (4) and the documents referred to in Section 173(4). The expression "the evidence" in Section 207-A(6) was construed as referring only to oral evidence recorded under sub-section (4), not to the documentary material supplied to the accused. The scheme of the provision, read with Sections 207-A(7) and 251-A(2), was treated as confirming that the Legislature intended examination of the accused only where there is evidence properly so called, and not to permit questioning on the basis of unproved or possibly inadmissible documents alone. The majority further held that an examination at this stage, in the absence of recorded evidence, could prejudice the accused and would not be authorized by the section.

Conclusion: The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to examine the accused under Section 207-A(6) when no evidence had been recorded under Section 207-A(4); the objection succeeded.

Dissenting Opinion: Ayyangar, J. held that the word "evidence" in Section 207-A(6) included not only oral evidence recorded under sub-section (4) but also the documents referred to in Section 173(4). On that view, the Magistrate was competent to examine the accused with reference to documentary material as part of the committal inquiry.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was ultimately dismissed by majority decision, and the order directing the accused to appear for examination was not disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a committal inquiry under Section 207-A(6), the accused may be examined only for circumstances appearing in evidence recorded under Section 207-A(4); documents furnished under Section 173(4) do not, by themselves, supply the jurisdictional basis for such examination.

---