INUGANTI VENKATA INDIRA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC). accused in C.C. No.332 of 2001. The charge Be that as it is, after completion of the against her is that she committed offences evidence, when the matter was coming up under Sections 27 and 64 of the Indian for examination of accused under Section STAMP ACT, 1899, 1989. She is a resident of 313 of Cr.PC., she filed a petition being Chennai. Before Trial Court, from the Cri.M.P.No. 116 of 2005 before the learned beginning she was represented by a lawyer Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for the purpose of Sections 205 and 251 of Bobbili under proviso to Section 313(1) of Cr.PC praying to dispense with her personal attendance and permit her advocate to answer questions under Section 313 of Cr.PC. The said petition was returned by the learned Magistrate on 24-1-2005 on the ground that N.B.W. against the petitioner is pending.

(2.) In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC., the petitioner made two prayers, one is to quash N.B.W. issued to the petitioner on 24-1-2005 and the other is to permit the duly instructed petitioner's Counsel to answer questions under Section 313 of Cr.PC. The case throws up a short but significant question of considerable importance. This Court therefore heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, Senior Counsel practising in this Court and former Additional Public Prosecutor, who assisted the Court when the request was made. This Court deeply appreciated the assistance given by him in the matter.

(3.) Section 313 of Cr.PC textually mandates the examination of the accused by putting such questions as are deemed by the Trial Court. The only exception carved out by the Parliament is with regard to a summons case and/or with regard to a case where personal attendance of the accused is dispensed with, under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 313 of Cr.PC. The examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC is of considerable importance in the criminal trial. As per subsection (4) of Section 313 of Cr.PC, the answers given by the accused in the examination under Section 313 of Cr.PC shall have to be taken into consideration with regard to involvement of the accused in the crime or otherwise. Except in the two exceptional cases mentioned in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 313 of Cr.PC, is it always mandatory to examine the accused personally under Section 313 of Cr.PC? A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Usha K. Pillai v. Raj K. Srinivas, (1993) 3 SCC 208 = AIR 1993 SC 2090, took a view that it is mandatory to examine the accused personally under Section 313 of Cr.PC and there is no exception. Subsequently, doubting the said view, the matter was considered by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Basavaraj R. Paul v. State of Karnaiaka, 2000 (2) ALD (Crl.) 843 (SC) = (2000) 8 SCC 740.