NEMICHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 26.6.2008 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jodhpur, whereby the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal of the accused Nemi Chand and remitted the case to the learned trial Court for re-examining the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure recording his explanation for the evidence appearing against him on record.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist took me through the impugned order dated 24.6.2008 and canvassed that the learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the trial Court for re-recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as the evidence appearing in the statements of the witnesses namely PW.10 Kishore Singh and PW-11 Babu lal were not put to the accused and the explanation was not sought for that evidence. Learned Counsel contended that when the accused was not examined Under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the evidence which appeared against him, in that event, the learned Appellate Court ought to have acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act and instead, remitted the case to the learned trial Court for re-examination of the accused. He placed reliance on the cases of Asraf Ali v. State of Assam, 2008 CrLJ 4338; Jitendra and Anr. v. State of M.P., 2003 CrLJ 4985 and Lallu Manjhi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, 2002 CrLJ 4330.