Chennai Covai Logistics vs S. Egyasamy, Proprietor, Salem Fuels

T. Sudanthiram, J.—The petitioners herein are the accused in S.T.R. No. 581 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Salem and they are facing charge u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the complainant examining his witnesses, the accused were questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Afterwards, the evidence on the side of the defence was closed and the arguments of both sides were heard and the case was posted for Judgment on 08.06.2010. On 08.06.2010, the learned Magistrate had reopened the case for further examination of the accused u/s 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and adjourned the case to 11.06.2010. Aggrieved by the above same, the petitioners herein have preferred this Criminal Revision.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after the evidence on the side of the defence was over and also after hearing the arguments of both sides, reopening the case for questioning u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is not permissible in law and it would cause grave prejudice to the accused. The learned Magistrate ought to have put all the incriminating materials and questioned the accused after the examination of all the prosecution witnesses and it is not fair on the part of the learned Magistrate to comply with the procedure u/s 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. in piecemeal.

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the materials available on record.

Of course, in this case, after hearing the arguments of both sides, the case was posted for Judgment but the learned Magistrate on perusal of the records found that certain facts are omitted to be mentioned during the examination of the accused u/s 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The point for consideration is whether the learned Magistrate is entitled to question the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. for a second time.

It is the duty of the trial Court to question the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. regarding all the incriminating materials against him and thereby giving an opportunity to the accused to explain regarding those circumstances and if any omission it would cause prejudice only to the accused. In such a situation, if the trial Court noticed that some of the incriminating circumstances have not been put to the accused by way of questioning, then it is open to the trial Court to question the accused further u/s 313 Cr.P.C. regarding those incriminating materials let in by the prosecution.

In fact u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. even if the case is posted for Judgment, the Court has got power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined. In such a situation, on examining the additional witness the Court is bound to question the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the fresh incriminating materials against the accused which comes in the evidence. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that once the accused is questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he cannot be questioned further. u/s 313(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the Court may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary.

As the trial Court felt that some of the facts were omitted to be mentioned in the earlier examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., nothing prevents the Court from questioning the accused once again regarding those incriminating materials against the accused. This Court does not find any illegality in re-opening the case for further examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.