SITA RAM ALIAS KHASAU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. Bhalla, J. This is a criminal revision under Sections 397/401, Cr. P. C. against the judgment and order, dated 9-8- 1983, passed by the Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1981 Sita Ram v. State convicting and sentencing the revisionist appellant to un dergo 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment to further go 6 months R. I. confirming the judgment and order dated 15-1-1981, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in case No. 1060 of 1978 State v. Sita Ram under Section 7/16, PEA. Act.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist raised legal question that the prejudice has been caused to the revisionist as there is no compliance of Section 313, Cr. P. C. It has been further argued that what soever compliance has been made is not in the spirit of the provision of this Section. In support of this argument, he relied on the judgment reported in 1995 Lucknow Criminal Reports 78- Shitla Prasad v. State of U. P. particularly para 5 thereof which reads as follows: "so far as this contention goes, it is found from the record of the lower Court that under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , the first question which was put to the accused revisionist was "gawahan KA BAYAN HUWA, GAWAHAN APKE KHILAF GAWAHI KYUO DE RAHE HAIN. IS VISAY ME TUMHE KYA KAHANA HAL" THE second question was "safaidena H AI. " It would appear frtim the aforesaid questions that no material much less the incriminating material which was sought to be utilised against the ac cused revisionist was at all put to the accused-revisionist. In the present case, there was the report of the Public Analyst to establish that the. sample comprised of insect-infested matter which exceeded the prescribed maximum of 6%. If noth ing more could be done by the learned Magistrate, he could have at least put up a question to the accused-revisionist to this effect so as to seek his explanation. But nothing of this sort was done. In the circumstances, it has to be found that there was breach of the salient and salutary provisions of Section 313, Cr. P. C. "

(3.) IT has been rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, Sri Jyotendra Misra that it is a complaint case and the evidence of the Food Inspector and other witnesses were recorded under Section 244, Cr. P. C. in the presence of the accused. How ever, subsequently, the charges were framed. In the circumstances, I am of the view that when the questions were asked from the accused before the charge was framed, the evidence was available before the trial Court. Therefore, the revisionist will not get any protection of non-com pliance of Section 313, Cr. P. C. . From the evidence on record, the questions asked before the charges were framed are as fol lows: Hindi Thereafter certain more questions were asked after the cross- examination. All these evidence have to be read together. IT is not open for the respondents to say that both the evidence has to be read inde pendently and separately. Specific relevant questions were asked in compliance of Sec tion 313 , Cr. P. C. which are as under: Hindi