Code
(1) Whenever any 1[Judge or Magistrate], after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in any enquiry or a trial, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another 1[Judge or Magistrate] who has and who exercises such jurisdiction, the 1[Judge or Magistrate] so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by himself:
Provided that if the succeeding 1[Judge or Magistrate] is of opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interests of Justice, he may re-summon any such witness, and after such further examination, cross-examination and re-examination, if any, as he may permit, the witness shall be discharged.
(2) When a case is transferred under the provisions of this Code 2[from one judge to another Judge or from one Magistrate] to another Magistrate, the former shall be deemed to cease to exercise jurisdiction therein, and to be succeeded by the latter, within the meaning of sub-section (1).
(3) Nothing in this section applies to summary trials or to cases in which proceedings have been stayed under section 322 or in which proceedings have been submitted to a superior Magistrate under section 325.
STATE AMENDMENT
Uttar Pradesh
In section 326 of the said Code,—
(a) in sub-section (1), for the word ‘Magistrate’, wherever occurring the words “Judge or Magistrate” shall be substituted,
(b) in sub-section (2), before the words “from one Magistrate, to another Magistrate”, the words from one Judge to another Judge or” shall be inserted.
[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 16 of 1976, s. 8]
Explanation
The section states that when evidence in a case is recorded by two or more Magistrates, the Magistrate who is ultimately trying the case may consider all the evidence recorded by the previous Magistrates. This includes:
- The evidence given by witnesses
- The statements of the accused
- The documents produced
This allows for a comprehensive and complete record of the case to be considered by the trying Magistrate, even if the evidence was collected by different Magistrates.
Illustration
Consider a case where an accused is charged with theft. During the investigation, one Magistrate records the statements of witnesses at the scene of the crime, while another Magistrate examines the accused and records their statement. In this case, the Magistrate ultimately trying the case can consider all the evidence recorded by both Magistrates to arrive at a judgment.
Common Questions and Answers
Q1: Can the trying Magistrate disregard evidence recorded by a previous Magistrate?
No, the trying Magistrate cannot disregard the evidence recorded by a previous Magistrate. They are bound to consider all the evidence, regardless of who recorded it.
Q2: What if there are contradictions in the evidence recorded by different Magistrates?
If there are contradictions, the trying Magistrate must carefully examine the evidence and resolve the contradictions before reaching a judgment.
Q3: What happens if the evidence recorded by a previous Magistrate is deemed inadmissible?
Even if the evidence is deemed inadmissible, the trying Magistrate must still consider it, but they are not bound by it. They can decide whether to rely on it or not, based on the specific circumstances of the case.
