The duty of the court to put questions separately, distinctly, and specifically to elicit the explanation from the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT

Surinder Singh, J.

Both these revision petitions filed by the accused-petitioner involve the identical question of law, hence taken-up together for their decision to avoid conflicting judgment.

2. The petitioner, hereinafter to be referred as the accused, is facing trial before the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in both the cases, wherein the evidence of the respondent, who is complainant is over and the learned trial Court on the conclusion of the evidence recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short the Code. The accused opted to lead evidence in defence. The matter was adjourned for 8.12.2011 on which date an application was moved for bifurcating question No.3 put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code on 3.11.2011 to seek clarificatory explanation. The grievance of the accused is summed up in para-2 of the application, which is supported by his affidavit. It reads as under:

"That while recording statement of the accused/respondent this Honble Court posed a composite question bearing question No.3 and the accused/respondent has answered the question as "Yeh Theek Hai" whereas the respondent/accused has answered the part of question pertaining to "it has further come in evidence that you accused awarded the construction work i.e. construction of approach road from left bank bifurcating point RD 36/0- 00 meters to Adit-to total gate at Nathpa by Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigham Jhakri". Whereas the answer recorded pertains to other allegations including above part which the accused couldnt comprehend and answer given was never intended to thereby, the great prejudice has been caused to the accused/respondent."

3. The contention so raised by the accused was resisted and contested by the respondent herein by filing the reply by the complainant denying that the said question was composite one and further that the question was framed by the Court in accordance with law so as to enable him to know what the accused was to explain and what was the circumstance which was against him for which an explanation was needed. The answer was given by the accused after appreciating and understanding the question put to him and denied that any prejudice was caused to him.

4. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application filed by the accused on 9.4.2013 against which the present petitions have been preferred.

5. Shri R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Shri Inderjeet Singh Narwal, Advocate, vehemently argued that question No.3 put to the accused was composite. The accused could not comprehend the question put in single question, containing various attendant circumstances, by which the accused was misled in giving proper answer, which caused prejudice to him. Further that it is the duty of the learned Court to put question separately, distinctly and specifically to elicit the explanation from the accused which is not done in the present case. It is also argued that while deciding the application, the learned trial Court has touched the merits of the case, which is unwarranted. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.

6. Contra, Shri Bhupinder Ahuja, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the contentions raised by the accused are afterthought. The accused answered the questions in affirmative after fully understanding its consequences and no prejudice has been caused to him. It is also contended in the application, the accused admitted that first part of the question was correct whereas qua other parts accused could have given a different answer, therefore, the admission so made cannot be allowed to be retracted by the accused.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record.

8. Section 313 of the "Code" empowers the Court to examine the accused at any t