SURENDRA SANGHVI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by an order dated 22nd March, 2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 1303/2003 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna, the petitioner went in revisional Court by preferring a revision (Case No.89/2012), Which came to be decided vide order impugned dated 9th May 2012, by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) confirming the order assailed therein, i.e., 22nd March, 2012. That is why the petitioner again came up before this Court by taking recourse to section 482 of CrPC with a prayer to allow his petition in the interest of justice while directing the trial Court to take the statement of the accused in terms of section 313 of CrPC.

(2.) THE brief facts, just for the decision of this petition are that in Complaint No. 1303/2003 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna against the petitioner and one of the accused, namely, Sanjeev Sharma for commission of an offence punishable under section 500 of IPC, the petitioner who stood already exempted from appearance before the trial Court being old and infirm person, made a request to dispense with his examination under section 313 of CrPC, which prayer has been rejected by the trial Magistrate. On preferring revision against the said order by the petitioner-accused, same was too dismissed by the revisional Court, hence, this petition.

(3.) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/ State, has submitted that personal appearance of the accused at the stage of recording statement under section 313 CrPC is mandatory in view of the word 'shall' used in clause (b) to section 313(1) of the Code. The same has to be interpreted as obligatory. According to her, claim of the petitioner that he is indisposed or suffering from any medical problem that would impede his movement, is totally false.