Court Overturns Lower Decisions Due to Procedural Errors; Orders Retrial with Fair Process Within One Year.

The HC allowed the revision petition, setting aside the trial and lower appellate courts' orders due to procedural irregularities, including the failure to record the accused's statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The HC found that the lower courts erred by not providing the accused an opportunity to present a defense. The case was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration, with instructions to follow due process and resolve the matter within one year, ensuring both parties are given a fair chance to present their cases.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal to quash judgment of conviction under Cr.P.C.
2. Failure to record accused's statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C.
3. Procedural irregularities in lower courts' judgments.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an accused, sought to quash the conviction judgment by invoking section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court, after the complainant filed a complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C., recorded statements and eventually convicted the accused. The lower appellate Court upheld the conviction. The petitioner argued that both courts erred in not considering that the accused's statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded based on the sworn statement before taking cognizance. The petitioner requested the High Court to set aside the lower courts' orders.

2. The respondent's counsel did not dispute the grounds raised by the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel presented the trial Court's order sheet, revealing procedural irregularities. The trial judge recorded the complainant's sworn statement as evidence without giving the accused an opportunity to present a defense. The lower appellate Court failed to address this issue and confirmed the judgment. Recognizing the procedural errors, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the trial Court for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to follow due process and provide both parties with a fair opportunity.

3. The High Court concluded that the actions of the lower courts were erroneous due to the failure to adhere to proper procedures and grant the accused a chance to present a defense. Therefore, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the trial Court and lower appellate Court's orders, and directed the trial Court to reconsider the matter within one year, ensuring compliance with legal requirements. The respective counsels were instructed to inform the trial Court about the High Court's order and assist in expeditiously resolving the case within the specified timeframe.

---