2020 (8) TMI 934 - HC - Indian Laws

Procedural Error in Section 313 Cr.P.C. Leads to Retrial and Refund in Negotiable Instruments Act Case.

The court found a procedural irregularity in recording the petitioner's statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. before the completion of the ... Dishonour of Cheque - case is posted for marking of the documents from the respondent's side and for cross-examination after recording petitioner's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT:- There is a procedural irregularity inasmuch as the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded much before the completion of the respondent's evidence. The Section 313 statement should have been after the respondent's evidence was completed including his cross-examination. This irregularity renders the entire proceeding from the stage of recording the accused’: plea vitiated. Therefore, neither of the impugned judgments can be sustained. The learned counsel relies upon a decision of this Court in Crl.R-P. No. 100241/2018 decided on 13th March 2019 in support of his submission that the impugned judgments will have to be set aside and the case remanded for re-trial from the stage of cross-examination of the respondent. The case is restored to the Beard of VI JMPC, Belagavi, for re- trial commencing with the cross-examination of the respondent. The parties shall appear before the VI JMPC. Belagavi without further notice, on 14 of September 2020 - The revision petition is accordingly allowed. Issues: Procedural irregularity in recording statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. before completion of respondent's evidence.In this case, the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to pay compensation. The petitioner's counsel argued that there was a procedural irregularity as the petitioner's statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded before the completion of the respondent's evidence, which should have been after the respondent's evidence and cross-examination. Citing a previous court decision, the counsel contended that this irregularity vitiated the proceedings, necessitating setting aside the impugned judgments and remanding the case for re-trial from the stage of cross-examination of the respondent.The respondent's counsel acknowledged that the case was indeed scheduled for further evidence from the respondent after the petitioner's statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The court found merit in this submission and accepted it. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and restored the case to the VI JMFC, Belagavi, for re-trial, starting with the cross-examination of the respondent. The parties were directed to appear before the VI JMFC, Belagavi, on a specified date without further notice. The revision petition was allowed, and the amount deposited by the petitioner was to be refunded, subject to identification.