Accused's Section 313 statement recorded before prosecution witnesses examination violates mandatory procedure, vitiates entire proceedings from plea stage.

Karnataka HC allowed criminal revision petition in dishonour of cheque case. Court held that recording accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC on day of appearance, before prosecution witnesses examination, constituted serious irregularity vitiating entire proceedings from plea stage. Trial court's procedure of recording Section 313 statement before conclusion of complainant's case violated mandatory legal requirements. Lower courts' contrary findings on trial procedure were set aside as interference was required due to non-compliance with statutory mandate.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The revision petitioner/accused challenges the judgment of the First Appellate Court confirming the Trial Court's conviction for the offense under Section 138 of N.I Act based on the dishonored cheque issue.

Summary:
The complainant entered into an agreement of sale with the accused for a flat but the sale deed was not executed despite partial payment. The accused issued a cheque that bounced due to "Account Closed." The Trial Court convicted the accused, but the revision petitioner argues that the accused was not given a proper opportunity to present evidence and that the recording of the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the day of appearance was irregular. The respondent justifies the lower courts' judgments. The revision petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's judgment emphasizing the need to put every circumstance to the accused during the trial. The Trial Court's approach in recording the accused's statement was criticized for not following the proper procedure. The Court held that the Trial Court's procedure was not legally sustainable and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration within six months.

The revision petitioner contested the conviction under Section 138 of N.I Act due to irregularities in the trial procedure, specifically the recording of the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the day of appearance. The respondent defended the lower courts' judgments. The Supreme Court's directive on recording the accused's statement was cited to highlight the importance of allowing the accused to explain circumstances against them. The Trial Court's failure to follow the correct procedure was deemed irregular, rendering the entire proceeding vitiated. The Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the lower courts' orders and remitting the matter for fresh consideration within six months.

---