Sejal Makkad | Amity Law School, Amity University Chhattisgarh | 28th May 2020<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Gulzar Khan Vs. State\u00a0AIR 1962 Pat 255<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Facts of the case <\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The main issue was whether the scope of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 extends to Court of Magistrate even before the cognizance begins?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Judgement <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court held the scope of Section 73 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 extends to Court of Magistrate also, even before the cognizance of the court begins. The Magistrate has the power to ask the accused for his Handwritings, Foot Prints, Which might be needed by investigation officers in the course of investigation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Reasoning<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The <\/strong>section of 73 of Evidence Act holds significance and its scope can be extended because it is an important of any case. The recording of evidence in any form plays a major role in moving ahead with the cases. Due to these, court at any time can order to give proofs such as fingerprint, handwriting etc. and person cannot exempt from it. The person who did not follow the rules and regulations of the courts might have to face the consequences and punishments awarded by the courts in regard to that. Thus, it is on the discretion of court to ask for evidences whenever the court wants to.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Sejal Makkad | Amity Law School, Amity University Chhattisgarh | 28th May 2020 Gulzar Khan Vs. State\u00a0AIR 1962 Pat 255 Facts of the case The accused were on bail granted by Sessions Judge. The Magistrate of Jamshedpur directed the accused to appear in front of the police station to give the fingerprints and footprints for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":167,"featured_media":368,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[104,28],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n