IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily, an accused is entitled to be furnished in advance, if he makes a request, of the questions to be put by the Court for the purpose of accused examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and he can file his written statement in addition to any oral answers given before the Court which request can be declined by the Court if the same has been done to delay the trial or is vexatious or for such germane reasons.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

N. Kotiswar Singh, ACJ—Heard Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel for the Petitioner; Heard also Mr. Athouba Khaidem, Learned P.P for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20-07-2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, Imphal West, Manipur in Special Trial (POCSO) Case No. 7/2015/1/2015 by which the learned Special Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner for supplying questions prepared by the Court for submission of written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

3. The Petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 31(10)WPS-I/W under Section 4 of POCSO Act and is facing trial. The prosecution closed the evidence after examining 11(eleven) witnesses and thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded for examination of the accused petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application praying for furnishing a copy of the questions prepared by the Trial Court prior to examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with prayer to permit the accused petitioner to file written statement in compliance of the provision under Section 313(5) Cr.P.C. so as to enable him to fully understand the questions and explain the incriminating materials against him. The Trial Court however, declined the request of the accused petitioner on the ground that the questions prepared were not yet final as the prosecution and the defense counsel are yet to suggest the relevant questions. However, the accused Petitioner was permitted to submit written statement and the fixed the case on 20.07.2017 for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

4. On 20.07.2017 the prayer was again made on behalf of the accused Petitioner for supplying questions to be put to the accused before examining him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, that prayer was rejected by the learned Special Judge vide order 20.07.2017 and the Ld. Special Judge, proceeded to examine the accused Petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the Court fixed 04.08.2017 for recording of evidence of the defense. It is this order passed on 20.07.2017 denying supply of questions prepared by the Court for examination of the accused Petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that has been challenged in this petition.

5. Several grounds have been raised in challenging the aforesaid order. It has been strenuously argued by Mr. Gunedhor, learned counsel for the Petitioner that Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been amended by Cr.P.C. inserting Sub-clause 5 by the Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act 5 of 2009 for the purpose of giving opportunity to the accused to file written statement on the basis of questions that may be put by the Court, which could be effective only when question prepared by the Court are furnished to the accused. It has been contended that denial on furnishing the questions prepared by the Court to the accused on the basis of which the accused can submit effective written statement as regards the incriminating materials against him, would amount to denial of a valuable right of the accused which would be against fair trial. It has been submitted that the object of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to give opportunity to the accused to enable to explain any inculpatory evidences adduced against him and as such, denial of furnishing to the accused of questions prepared by the Court would amount to denial of fair trial. Denial of questions prepared by the Court would effectively amount to denial of opportunity to file proper written statement to explain the incriminating materials against the accused. Accordingly, it has been submitted that such denial would cause serious miscarriage of justice.

6. Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned GA, however, submits that reading of the Section 313 Cr.P.C. would clearly show that it is not a mandatory provision and it would be left to discretion of the Court as to whether the Court should provide the questions prepared to the accused in advance and also whether the written statement s