ANIL SUSEEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 324 I.P.C. The recording of the evidence is over. The case is at the stage of S. 313 examination. The petitioner filed an application that the counsel may be permitted to answer the questions. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, a copy of which is produced as Annex.I, dismissed the said application.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner complains that the petitioner is employed abroad and unnecessary insistence on personal appearance of the petitioner is causing him great inconvenience and prejudice. There is no incriminating circumstance against the petitioner at all and in these circumstances it is not necessary to insist on the personal presence of the petitioner for the purpose of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., submits the learned counsel. The learned counsel further submits that no witness has tendered any meaningful or effective evidence which the petitioner is bound to explain. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be questioned as requested by him through his counsel.

(3.) Report of the learned Magistrate was called for. I have perused the report dt. 2.2.2007 submitted by the learned Magistrate. A copy of the proposed S.313 examination (questions already prepared by the learned Magistrate) has also been forwarded to this Court.