SHAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS it mandatory that the accused should be invariably present in court to answer the questions put to him under Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code')? The above question has been answered in the negative by Their Lordships of the Supreme court in Basavaraj R. Patil and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , air 2000 SC 3214.

(2.) BUT the same question has cropped up in this case since, the learned Magistrate took the view that the accused could be allowed to answer the questions of the Court without being physically present, only if he was already exempted from personal attendance in the court. Is this view correct? Is it in accord with the dictum laid down in basavaraj's case?

(3.) THE petitioner is being tried before the Judicial Magistrate of First class, Mannarkkad for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 447 I. P. C. He is presently employed in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. He had left the country for Jeddah during the pendency of the above case. But his absence did not impede the proceedings of the Court. The applications filed on his behalf on the respective dates of posting to dispense with his presence were allowed by the Court. Thus, the witnesses cited by the prosecution were examined and the evidence was closed.