( 1. ) APPLICANT Shivcharan has filed criminal revision no. 119/09 aggrieved by the order dated 30:1. 2009 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial no. 99/08, whereby ordered for rejection of the written statement filed by the ap-plicant accused under the provisions of section 233 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure.

( 2. ) MISC. criminal case No. 1107/09 has been filed by the defence counsel of the applicant accused, aggrieved by the remark made by the trial Court against the defence counsel Prem Kumar Sood in the aforesaid order dated 30. 1. 2009 by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Guna.

( 3. ) AS in both these cases the impugned order dated 30. 1. 2009 passed by the trial court is under challenge, hence both these matters are being decided commonly by this common order.

( 4. ) SESSIONS Trial No. 99/08 pending before the First Additional Sessions Judge, guna. On 30. 1. 2009 the case was fixed for recording of the statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 cr. P. C. After the statement of the accused counsel for the applicant has filed written statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 233 (2) Cr. P. C. after taking signatures of the applicant before the court. At that time learned trial court has read over the statement filed by the accused as written statement and made certain remarks against the defence counsel that he had got signatures of the accused without reading the written statement to the accused and also gave a finding that this written statement cannot be looked into as per the provisions of Section 233 (2) Cr. P. C. Aggrieved by the aforesaid uncalled remarks made by the trial court against the defence counsel and against the finding that the aforesaid statement cannot be looked into by the trial court, the applicant came up before this Court by this revision petition.

( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the application and Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

( 6. ) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per provisions of section 233 (2)Criminal Procedure Code the accused has right to file a written statement apart from the statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is his defence and trial court at the time of consideration of total case against the applicant may look into this written statement for the clarification given by the accused in his defence. There is no specific procedure provided for submission of the written statement under section 233 (2) Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial court has made uncalled remarks against the defence counsel that he has not read over the statement to the accused before the got signatures of the accused on this written statement and in view of that, also wrongly gave the finding that this statement cannot be looked into as per provisions of Section233 (2)Criminal Procedure Code. The aforesaid finding and remarks made by the trial court is illegal, erroneous and liable to beset aside.

( 7. ) LEARNED Government for the State supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of both revision petition as well as the petition under Section 482 criminal Procedure Code.

( 8. ) AFTER considering the rival contentions of both the counsel and on perusal of the Impugned order it is apparent that when there is no specific procedure provided for submission of the written statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 233 (2) Cr. P. C. then if the accused chooses to file the written statement duly signed by him then certainly the court ought to take it on record and consider It according to law. Whatever effect of the written statement of the accused will have; it can be considered only at the stage of final judgment and after hearing the arguments of both the counsel. The aforesaid remark made by the trial Court against the defence counsel also appears to be unwarranted and the trial Court cannot refuse to take the written sta