Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, which allowed the accused's revision application and directed the trial court to issue summons to defence witnesses. The complainant had filed Criminal Case No.951/2003 before the JMFC, Khed, which resulted in conviction of the accused. The accused appealed (Criminal Appeal No.13/2006), and the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and remanded the case because incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The remand order directed the trial court to record the Section 313 statement properly and then hear arguments and decide afresh. After remand, the trial court recorded the statement under Section 313. Thereafter, the accused filed an application (Ex.83) to summon a defence witness. The complainant opposed, and the trial court rejected the application. The accused filed Criminal Revision Application No.34/2008, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, directing the trial court to issue summons to the defence witness. The complainant then filed the present writ petition. The main legal issue was whether the remand order restricted the trial court from allowing the accused to lead defence evidence. The petitioner argued that the remand order specifically limited the trial court's power to only recording the Section 313 statement and hearing arguments, thus no scope for defence evidence. The court rejected this argument, holding that the purpose of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to give the accused an opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances, and it does not curtail the accused's right to lead defence evidence. The court emphasized that the right to lead evidence is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence and natural justice. The remand order did not expressly or impliedly bar the accused from leading defence evidence. Therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge correctly allowed the revision application. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Section 313 Cr.P.C. - Purpose of Examination - The purpose of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put incriminating circumstances to the accused so that he may get an opportunity to explain them. It does not restrict the accused's right to lead defence evidence after such examination. (Paras 4-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Remand Order - Scope - A remand order directing the trial court to record Section 313 statement and hear arguments does not impliedly bar the accused from leading defence evidence, as the right to lead evidence is a fundamental right of the accused under criminal jurisprudence. (Paras 3-5) C) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Defence Evidence - In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is entitled to lead defence evidence even after remand for compliance of Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the trial court cannot reject such application on the ground that the remand order did not permit it. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether after remand for recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused is precluded from leading defence evidence?
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing the trial court to issue summons to the defence witness is upheld.
Law Points
- Right of accused to lead defence evidence
- Scope of remand order
- Section 313 Cr.P.C. purpose
- Natural justice
- Criminal jurisprudence
