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

Post By 24law
February 12, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Karnataka High Court has held that a trial court has the discretion to dispense with the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) if the accused does not avail themselves of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or lead any defence evidence.

Court’s Decision On Section 313 CrPC

A single-judge Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh dismissed a revision petition filed by Sunil Yadav, who had been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner sought a remand of the case to the trial court on the ground that his statement under Section 313 CrPC was not recorded. However, after reviewing the records, the High Court found that the petitioner failed to utilize multiple opportunities provided by the trial court to cross-examine witnesses and present his defence. The Court observed: “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 trial 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.”

Case Background

The case stemmed from a cheque bounce dispute, where the petitioner had allegedly issued a cheque for Rs.6,00,000, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court convicted him, imposing a fine of Rs.7,60,000, of which Rs.10,000 was to be defrayed to the State exchequer. His appeal before the Sessions Court was dismissed, leading him to file the present revision petition before the High Court.

Failure To Avail Legal Opportunities

The High Court noted that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to participate in the trial but failed to do so. Initially, he did not appear despite service of summons, leading to the issuance of a non-bailable warrant (NBW). After securing bail, he was granted the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, but he repeatedly failed to do so. The Court noted: “The revision petitioner did not give any reply even after service of notice and cognizance was taken and also 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. It is also not in dispute that plea was recorded and an opportunity was given to cross examine the witness and he did not cross examine the witness and hence taken as no cross and 313 statement was dispensed.”

High Court's Analysis

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the trial court erred in dispensing with his 313 statement, the High Court emphasized that multiple opportunities were granted to him to cross-examine witnesses and lead evidence, which he failed to utilize. “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.” The Court referred to various precedents, including Mohanraj & Others v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt Ltd [(2021) 6 SCC 258], which described Section 138 NI Act cases as “quasi-criminal” proceedings. The judgment reiterated that courts are not bound to indefinitely delay proceedings due to an accused’s deliberate inaction.

Verdict

Dismissing the revision petition, the Karnataka High Court upheld the discretion of the trial court to dispense with the Section 313 statement in cases where the accused fails to engage in the trial process.