https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168741 Section 326(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars a succeeding Magistrate from acting on evidence recorded by a predecessor in a summary trial, because only the substance of evidence is available and the successor cannot properly evaluate it from that record. The prohibition is mandatory, so consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction and the defect is one of competency, not a curable irregularity. The successor Magistrate could not validly proceed on the earlier summary-trial record, and the conviction based on those proceedings could not be sustained; a de novo retrial was required. en-us Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168741 Section 326(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars a succeeding Magistrate from acting on evidence recorded by a predecessor in a summary trial, because only the substance of evidence is available and the successor cannot properly evaluate it from that record. The prohibition is mandatory, so consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction and the defect is one of competency, not a curable irregularity. The successor Magistrate could not validly proceed on the earlier summary-trial record, and the conviction based on those proceedings could not be sustained; a de novo retrial was required. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168741