BASAVARAJ R PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) When a Criminal Court complates prosecution evidence (other than in summons cases) is it indispensably mandatory that the accused himself should be questioned Cannot the Court allow the advocate to answer such questions on behalf of the accused at least in some exigent conditions A two Judge Bench of this Court has held in Usha K. Pillai v. Raj K. Srinivas, (1993) 3 SCR 467 : (1993 AIR SCW 2253 : AIR 1993 SC 2090 : 1993 Cri LJ 2669) that there is no alternative to it permissible under law. When such an issue arose in this case before this Court, a Bench of two Judges made a reference to a larger Bench for reconsideration of the legal position stated in Usha K. Pillai (supra).

(3.) The aforesaid question arose in this case from the following factual background : First appellant-a Software Engineer (now stationed in USA) is the husband of second respondent Ms. Arundathi. Their marriage was solemnised in November, 1992 and a female child was born to them. But eventually their connubial life passed through bad weather and the situation reached a stage when Arundathi moved a Judicial Magistrate of First Class for maintenance allowance from her husband. An order in her favour was passed by the said Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code").