RAJ BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 26-11-1990 passed by Sri Gaya Prasad. 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1985 affirming the conviction and sentence of six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo R. I. for two months under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adufleration Act awarded by Sri Naresh Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Firozabad, District Agra in Criminal Case No. 62 of 1984.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the ap plicant and Sri Lal Vijay Singh and Sri Manphool Singh, learned Counsel for the State.

(3.) I have given my anxious thought to the submission made on behalf of the ap plicant. It is true that the provisoins of Sectoin 313, Cr. P. C. requires the Court to put such question to accused, as the Court considers necessaary, for the purpose of enabling the accused pcrosnally to explain any circumstance appearing in the evi dence against him and the Court is also required to put the question, after wit nesses for prosecution have been exam ined, before he is called on for his defence. But in the instant case, no incriminating circusmtances against the applicant, ap pearing- on the basis of the evidence ad duced by the prosecution, has been put to the accused under Section 313, Cr. P. C. . Neither the material nor any specific cir-cumstances arising out of the evidence on record has been put to the accused under Section 313, Cr. P. C. . I am not satisfied with the finding recorded by the appellate Court in this connection that the statement of the accused, after charge has been framed was recorded on 4-9- 1984 wherein all the cir cumstances were put to the accused and those questions put to the accused before the prosecution evidence was examined will be deemed to be circusmtances under the provisions of Section 313, Cr. P. C. . In my opinion, the Magistrate was not justi fied in putting question to the accused un der Section 313, Cr. P. C. in cryptic manner that he heard the evidence of the prosecu tion recorded against him and why the witnesses deposed against him. Under the provisions of Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the trial Court is required to put the material and complete evidence recorded by the trial Court to the accused and the circumstances appearing on the basis of the evi dence against him. Non- compliance of the provisions of Section 313, Cr. P. C. in re cording the statement of the accused viti ated the trial.