Personal examination under Section 313 CrPC is mandatory in warrant cases; advocate's examination is not enough.

Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the accused to be personally questioned on incriminating circumstances after prosecution evidence closes, and the requirement is mandatory as part of audi alteram partem. In a warrant case, the Court cannot treat examination of the accused's advocate as compliance, even where personal attendance has been dispensed with under Sections 205(1) or 317 CrPC. The proviso allowing dispensation applies only to summons cases. An offence punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years is therefore outside that exception. Examination through an advocate is permissible only for a company or other juridical person. The order permitting counsel to be examined instead of the accused was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a warrant case where the personal attendance of the accused has been dispensed with, the Court can satisfy the requirement of Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by examining the accused's advocate instead of the accused personally.

Analysis: Section 313(1)(b) requires the Court, after prosecution evidence is closed, to question the accused personally on incriminating circumstances, subject only to the proviso which permits dispensation of such examination in a summons case where personal attendance has already been dispensed with. The provision is mandatory and embodies the rule of audi alteram partem. Since an offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, it is a warrant case and not a summons case. In such a case, even if personal attendance is dispensed with under Sections 205(1) or 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused cannot avoid personal examination under Section 313(1)(b). Examination of the advocate in place of the accused is not sufficient compliance, except where the accused is a company or other juridical person.

Conclusion: The accused had to be personally examined under Section 313(1)(b), and the order permitting examination of the advocate in his place was unsustainable; the appellant succeeded.

---