JIVANJI MALAJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE other point raised by Mr. Barot relates to the learned Magistrate having not followed the provisions contained in sec. 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code inasmuch as he did not put questions with regard to the evidence and the circumstances disclosed therein so as to enable the accused to explain the same. If one turns to the further statements of the accused each of them has been asked no doubt a general question about his having heard the prosecution evidence led in the case and whether he had to say anything in the matter. All of them have replied by saying that he produces his written statement. It appears that the written statement was produced by accused by No. 1 and it is at Ex. 4. THE rest of the accused have stated in reply to the question put by the Court that he admits the contents of the written statement filed by accused No. 1 and that he has put his thumb impression thereon. Now it is not that there is any bar to the accused putting any written statement in response to the general question put by the Court at the stage when he is examined under sec. 347 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Such a written statement is often produced by the accused and the Courts of the Magistrates have been accepting the same. That in a way appears to have been prepared under the guidance of the advocates appearing for the accused presumably for the reason that the accused may not be asked any questions by the Court the reply to which may turn out sometimes not helpful to him in the case. It is no doubt the duty of the Court to put all questions in respect of the evidence and circumstances disclosed in the case so as to enable the accused to explain the same. But if the Court feels satisfied after satisfying itself that the written statement filed by him is voluntarily made and the contents whereof are admitted by him to be true it may not be so very necessary then to put all such questions particularly when the explanations to the same are given in his written statement. I am shown no authority which suggests that inspite of all that not having put questions under sec. 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the accused by the Court the trial would be vitiated on that account. Now if we look to the written statement Ex. 42 it is a very elaborate statement containing four pages and dealing with every little aspect of the case. If in such circumstances the Court felt satisfied that accused has explained the evidence and circumstances disclosed in the case against him it may not be so very necessary to put questions thereafter so as to have practically the same answers which have been set out in their written statement. What is required under sec. 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code is fulfilled. I do not see how the provisions contained in sec. 342 would then be said to have been violated. It would be too much for such an accused or his learned advocate now to raise such a question when that method was obviously helpful and for his benefit and more so when no prejudice to him is thereby caused.

(2.) IN this connection I was referred to a case of Jai Dev v. State of Punjab A. I. R. 1963 Supreme Court 612 where the Supreme Court has explained the effect of the earlier case of Ajmer Singh v. The State of Punjab A. I. R. 1953 Supreme Court 76. The Supreme Court has held that:-