KALIAPERUMAL Vs. ANANDAN NAMBIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision case against conviction and sentence. The accused is a railway employee belonging to the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union P.W. 2, who is the victim in this case, is the President of the Dakshina Railway Employees Union. On the eve of re -election for the post of office bearers in the Southern Railway Employees Co -operative Society Ltd, there was a keen contest between both the Unions and the campaign was in full swing. At that time a printed bill Ex. P1 was distributed on behalf of the Joint Committee in which the name of the printer was mentioned and in which there were defamatory statements against P.W. 2. P.W. 2 sent a notice, Ex. P4, to P.W. 1 printer to which P.W. 1 sent a reply Ex. P6 in which he mentioned the name of the accused as the person who gave the matter for printing, P.W. 1 also produced the manuscript Ex. P2, bearing the signature of the accused, viz., Ex. P3. In the trial the printer was examined as P.W. 1 and the victim, viz., the President of the Dakshina Railway Employees Union as P.W. 2, six exhibits were filed. The accused did not adduce any evidence. The trial Court found the accused guilty of an offence under S. 500, I.P.C., convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 250 in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the First Additional Sessions Judge. Tiruchirapalli, by judgment dated 23rd September, 1982, confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence of fine to Rs. 100. It is against that judgment the present revision is filed.

(2.) THE case of the revision petitioner it that the accused revision petitioner was not properly examined under S. 313, Crl.P.C., that he raised this point before the appellate court and that the appellate Court repelled his objection stating that in a summary trial case the question need not be as elaborate as in a warrant case.

(3.) AS far as the record of examination is concerned. S. 281, Crl.P.C., indicates how the examination of accused is to be recorded in sessions and warrant cases. S. 281 also requires that the record of examination of accused should be in the form of questions and answers. But sub -S.6 of S. 281 says that the prescription of that section would not apply to the examination of an accused person in the course of a summary trial. S. 263, Crl.P.C. prescribes as to what should be the record in summary trial. One would find that the record is most summary one as it would be in the form of a short entry in a register. Even the evidence will not be taken verbatim, the court would only record the substance thereof, as per S. 264, Crl.P.C. and S. 274, Crl.P.C. A perusal of the above said sections of the Criminal Procedure Code would disclose that though the nature of the examination under S. 313, Crl.P.C. is not strictly speaking different in a summons or summary case from what it is in a sessions and warrant cases, there is considerable difference, however in the mode of recording. Further the examination itself may be dispensed with altogether in the former case, when his presence during trial has been dispensed with.