https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169296 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. en-us Fri, 30 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Apr 2015 13:20:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169296 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 30 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169296