Appadurai and 9 Others vs State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tricky

Janarthanam, J.—The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Trichy (common respondent), on information, registered cases, in different Crime Numbers, against individual petitioners in these actions, for alleged offences u/s 162 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 5(3)(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and on completion of investigation, filed final reports separately against each of them for the said offences, u/s 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which were taken on file as Special Case Nos. 3 to 12 of 1990, by learned Special Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tiruchirapalli.

The trial, in the nature of the cases, it appears, reached the stage of questioning u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this stage, each of the petitioners filed petitions u/s 313(l)(a) thereof, objecting to the putting of questions on the ground that there were no incriminating pieces of evidence, direct or circumstantial, available and those petitions were numbered as Crl.M.P. Nos. 296 to 305 of 1993 and arguments thereon from the respective sides were heard and eventually, learned Special Judge dismissed all those petitions, giving rise to the present actions.

Along with these revisions, Crl.M.P. Nos. 3459 to 3558 of 1994 also been filed praying for stay of all further proceedings before the trial Court.

Though separate orders have been passed by the Court below, for the sake of convenience, considering the issue involved in all these revisions between the parties, a common order is desired to be made.

Even at the outset, I may state that there are absolutely no merits for the entertainment of all these revision petitions. Axiomatic proposition of law it is that if there are no circumstances of incriminating in nature appearing against accused in evidence, then unquestionably, the Court should not put in any question at all u/s 313 Crl.P.C. If any statement is made by an accused person, as a result of questions improperly put to him, it cannot be taken into account against him. Perhaps in a given case, there may be a small piece of circumstantial evidence, which would not by itself be sufficient to warrant a conviction. But it could certainly be sufficient to justify to put questions by the Court to the accused. In such an eventuality, if the accused chooses to make a statement, which inculpates him, then, there is no reason to think that his answer cannot be taken into account, because that answer was not strictly necessary for explaining away the circumstances appearing against him.

Such being the legal position, in the case ''on hand, it is not as if questions much less irrelevant questions, u/s 313 Crl.P.C. had been framed by the Court below and put to the accused, so that it may be possible for the Court to decide whether those questions were properly put or not. Further, framing and putting up questions to the accused facing trial, just like the petitioners, is the exclusive prerogative of the trial Magistrate, who, of course, may or may not commit any irregularity or illegality in framing and putting of questions. If any irregularity or illegality had been committed by a trial Magistrate, in framing and putting questions u/s 313 Crl.P.C. and answers elicited therefor, and the same, if utilised against the accused, then it can be said that the accused is prejudiced in his cause. That stage has not at all reached in all these cases. Such being the position, the apprehension entertained by all these petitioners in this regard cannot have any basis.

All these Revisions, as such, deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, they are dismissed. Consequently, all Crl.M.Ps. are also dismissed.