Criminal Procedure Code · Updated to 1 May 2023 · Chapter XXXIX · Special Provisions Relating to Evidence
395. Procedure where person able to give material evidence is dangerously ill
Feedback & supportWhenever it appears to a Magistrate that any person able to give material evidence, either for the prosecution or defence, touching a seizable offence is so dangerously ill that it is not practicable to take his evidence according to the usual course of law the said Magistrate may take the deposition of that person provided such reasonable notice as the case admits of has been given to the prosecutor and the accused of his intention to take it and of the time and place at which he intends to take it.
seizable offence
“seizable offence” means an offence for which and “seizable case” means a case in which a police officer may ordinarily arrest without warrant according to the third column of the First Schedule; NOTE―The Postal Services Act 1991 has since been repealed by the Postal Services Act 2012 ―see subsection 110(1)…
If the accused is in custody a Magistrate may order the officer in charge of the prison to convey him to the place, at the time notified, and the said officer shall convey him accordingly.
When it is proved at the trial of the said accused for any offence to which that deposition relates that the deponent is dead or that for any sufficient cause his attendance cannot be procured, the deposition may be read either for or against the accused, notwithstanding his absence when the same was taken, if it is certified under the hand of the
offence
“offence” means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force;
Magistrate who took it and the contrary is not proved or if it is shown by extrinsic evidence that—
the deponent was at the time of his examination dangerously ill as aforesaid;
208
the said deposition was duly taken at the place and time notified; and
reasonable notice of the intention to take it was given to the person against whom it is tendered in evidence, so that he or his advocate might have been present and might have had, if he had chosen to be present, full opportunity of cross-examination.