SHIVGONDA MALLAPPA HUCHGOND Vs. RAMGONDA B SANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order in revision passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Criminal Revision Application No. 131 of 1980. The aforesaid Revision Application arises from the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jath in Summary Criminal Case No. 46 of 1988 passed on 15th June, 1988 whereby the respondent Nos. 1 to 11 were convicted under Sec. 500 of the I. P. C.

(2.) THE allegation against them was that they have made defamatory statement against the petitioner before the Charity Commissioner. After trial, the learned Magistrate has found that the statement given by respondent Nos. 1 to 11 before the Charity Commissioner brings down and damage reputation of the petitioner and, therefore, committed offence under Sec. 499 of I. P. C. Against that Judgment of the Magistrate, the revision was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 11 in which the impugned order was passed by the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court without going into the question raised in the Revision Application and without going into the merits of the case, merely on a technical ground, set aside the conviction and ordered for retrial by the Magistrate.

(3.) I heard the counsel Mr. Pradhan for the Petitioners and Mrs. Kantharia, A. P. P. for the State. No representation on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 11. The defects pointed out by the Revisional Court in the procedure adopted by the Magistrate was that while recording the statement of the accused under Sec. 313, common questions have been asked and answers were elicited by the Magistrate. This, according to Revisional Court, is not in accordance with the mandate laid down under Sec. 313. The manner in which the questions to be framed and asked and the answers to be elicited is dependent upon the facts of each case. Here the allegations against Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 are common. They jointly prepared the statement and signed and given to the Charity Commissioner which contained defamatory material. Therefore, by asking general questions and eliciting answers from the accused will not affect the right of the accused, nor such procedure could be said to be irregular. On a reading of Sec. 313 of Cr. P. C. asking common questions to the accused in general, if it is relevant to the evidence disclosed in the trial, is not barred. Therefore, conclusion arrived at by the Revisional Court that merely asking general questions and eliciting answers under Sec. 313 is not regular procedure, cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the observation of the Sessions Court is not correct.