Magistrate Has Discretion To Record Statement U/S 313 CrPC If Accused Has Not Examined Or Cross-Examined Witnesses: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that it is the discretion of the trial court to dispense with the accused statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code if the accused does not avail of any opportunity for cross-examining the witness or lead any defence evidence.

A single judge, Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the petition filed by Sunil Yadav who was convicted for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act sought the matter be remanded back to the trial court.

It was contended by the petitioner that the Trial Court committed an error in dispensing the 313 statement and ought to have secured and recorded the 313 statement. Since, he has not been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and if he has afforded an opportunity to defend himself, the result would be otherwise and thus remand the matter to the trial court to follow the procedure.

On going through the records the bench noted that the revision petitioner did not give any reply even after service of notice and cognizance was taken and a summons was served on him but he did not choose to appear and hence non-bailable warrant was issued and thereafter he appeared before the Court and obtained the bail.

Further, an opportunity was given to cross-examine the witness but he did not cross-examine, hence the court took it as no cross and S.313 statements were dispensed. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application seeking recall of witnesses twice, which came to be allowed still he did not cross-examine the witnesses or lead defence evidence. Following this, the court dispensed the S.313 statement and passed the impugned order.

In dismissing the petition, the High Court said, “It is not the duty of the Court to issue non-bailable warrant and secure the accused and once already taken recourse to secure him by issuing NBW, each and every stage the Court cannot issue NBW and secure him and once he claims the trail without pleading guilty and he shall co-operate and take the opportunity to cross examine the witness and in spite of several opportunity was given for cross-examination and led his defense evidence, but he did not do so.”

"I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in dispensing the same and proceeded against the petitioner and the same cannot be a whims and fancy of the accused to seek for remand the matter when the opportunity was given to him and not utilized the same and no grounds to set-aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration,” it added.

Appearance: Advocate Akash Sudhakar Kande for Petitioner.

Advocate T.S Chandraprabha for Respondents

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 54

Case Title: Sunil Yadav AND Y C Manju.

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.664/2020

Click Here To Read/Download Order