Back
1987 Supreme(All) 556
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V.P.Mathur
SATISH KUMAR ARORA
Versus
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SANDILA HARDOI
Decided On : 09 December 1987
Cri. Misc. Case No. 696 of 1986
The statement of an accused under Section 313, Cr. P. C. is not considered as evidence under Section 319, Cr. P. C. and cannot be the sole basis for passing an order under Section 319, Cr. P. C.
Headnote:
Section 319, Cr. P. C. - Impugned Order under Section 319, Cr. P. C. - The court held that a statement of an accused recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. is not considered as evidence under Section 319, Cr. P. C. and cannot be the sole basis for passing an order under Section 319, Cr. P. C.
Fact of the Case:
The trial against Harbans Lal on a charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was almost complete. The accused implicated the present applicants in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. The Magistrate passed an order summoning the applicants to stand trial as co-accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order passed by the Magistrate summoning the applicants as co-accused based solely on the statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P. C. was vitiated.
Issues: The issue was whether the statement of an accused under Section 313, Cr. P. C. can be considered as evidence under Section 319, Cr. P. C. for passing an order summoning additional accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statement of an accused under Section 313, Cr. P. C. is not considered as evidence under Section 319, Cr. P. C. and cannot be the sole basis for passing an order under Section 319, Cr. P. C.
Final Decision: The proceedings against the applicants pending in the Court were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
This petition is being disposed of finally. An order purporting to be under Section 319, Cr. P. C. was made by the Judicial Magis trate, Sandila, district Hardoi, who was trying the case against Harbans Lal on a charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears that the trial was almost complete and the statement of the accused Harbans Lal was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. He made a statement implicating the present applicants Satish Kumar Arora and Surendra Kumar Arora in this case. The learned Magistrate appears to have treated this state ment under Section 313, Cr. P. C. as an evidence. He appears to have taken a case from an application made by the Public Prosecutor who also brought it to the notice of the Court that in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. Harbans Lal had made written allegation implicating Satish Kumar Arora and Surendra Kumar Arora. The learned Magistrate thereafter passed the impugn ed order on 16-11-1987 summoning Satish Kumar Arora and Surendra Kumar to stand their trial as co-accused. It also appears that by subsequent order the Judicial Magistrate, Sandila directed issue of non-bailable warrants of arrest for both these accused.
2. I have heard learned counsel of the applicants as well as the learned Counsel for the State It is undoubted that a statement of an accused recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. is not an evidence as envisaged by Section 319, Cr. P. C. and on the basis of this statement alone the Court cannot pass an order under Section 319, Cr. P. C. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is, therefore, vitiated, Of course, it will be open to the learned Magistrate to proceed against the petitioners, if there is evidence against them but on the basis of this statement alone of the accused it is Apt possible.
3. The proceedings against petitioners Satish Kumar Arora and Surendra Kumar Arora pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sandiia, district Hardoi in Criminal Case No, 307 of 1980 now renumbered as Criminal Case No. 1187 of 1987-State v. Harbans Lal and others shall stand quashed.
Petition allowed.
.
