RAM CHANDRA MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE persons, who are admittedly employees of the applicant, were being prosecuted for cutting a cable owned by the Obra Thermal Power Project, a State Government undertakiag. In fact, it is a part of the U. P. State Electricity Board. During the course of the trial the Munsif Magistrate, in exercise of the powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code, called upon the applicant to defend himself along with the other accusal Thereafter, the applicant appeared before the Magistrate and a charge was framed as against him. Proceedings are still going on before the learned Magistrate. Now, the applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code.

(2.) BEFORE the learned Magistrate one of the prosecution witnesses had stated that the accused, at the time or' their arrest, had stated that they were the employees of the applicant and they were cutting the cable under the orders of the applicant, who was described as the Contractor. The accused persons, in their statements recorded under section 313 of the Code, gave the same version as of the said prosecution witness.

(3.) IT is well-known that evidence can be either oral or documentary or circumstantial. Section 319 embraces in it all tide three types of evidence. IT is true that the statement of an accused in proceedings under section 313 does not constitute evidence in the strict sense of the term but it does not mean that the same should be ignored altogether. In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. R. B. Chaudhari, AIR 1968 SC 110 the Supreme Court considered the value of the statement of an accused recorded in proceedings under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, with which the provisions of Section 313 of the Code are in pari materia. IT was observed :-