1990 PLP 1419 (MLD)
CHANDU LAL CHANDRAKER‑‑Appellant Versus PURAN MAL and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1419 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench Members | K. N Singh and M. H. Kania, JJ |
| Parties | CHANDU LAL CHANDRAKER‑‑Appellant Versus PURAN MAL and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal trial‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1419 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal trial‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1419 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of India bench comprising: K. N Singh and M. H. Kania, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1419 (MLD) (CHANDU LAL CHANDRAKER‑‑Appellant Versus PURAN MAL and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Power to examine accused‑‑‑Personal attendance of accused‑‑‑Examination of accused under S. 313, Indian Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Personal attendance of accused at trial dispensed with‑‑‑Accused ordered to appear personally before Court for examination‑‑‑Statement made by accused before Supreme Court that he does not want to answer any of the questions put to him by Court and would not raise question of prejudice at any stage‑‑‑Order to personally appear for examination was set aside.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 1987, decided on 22nd March, 1988. ‑‑‑‑Power to examine accused‑‑‑Personal attendance of accused‑‑‑Examination of accused under S. 313, Indian Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Personal attendance of accused at trial dispensed with‑‑‑Accused ordered to appear personally before Court for examination‑‑‑Statement made by accused before Supreme Court that he does not want to answer any of the questions put to him by Court and would not raise question of prejudice at any stage‑‑‑Order to personally appear for examination was set aside. The appellant is an accused in a criminal case pending before the trial Court. The trial Court has dispensed with the appellant's personal appearance under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has permitted him to be represented at the trial through his counsel. On the conclusion of the trial the learned Magistrate directed the appellant to appear personally before the Court for recording his statement as contemplated by section 313 of the Code. The appellant's request that his statement may be recorded through his counsel was rejected by the trial Court and he was directed to appear before the Court. The appellant challenged the order of the Magistrate before the High Court by means of Miscellaneous Petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, The High Court rejected the petition and refused to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate. The appellant has challenged the order of the Magistrate and the High Court in the present appeal.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, Mr. S. K. Puri, learned counsel appearing alongwith Mr. Rajinder Sachhar, stated on taking instructions, that the appellant does not want to answer any of the questions which are going to be put to him by the trial Court under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he further states that he will not raise the question of prejudice, if any, caused to him on account of his non‑examination at subsequent stage of trial, in appeal or revision. In view of this statement, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for the appellant to appear before the trial Court. We accordingly set aside the order of the trial Court and High Court, directing the appellant to appear before the trial Court for making statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. It has been brought to our notice that the trial has been pending since long, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case at an early date. Z.S./242/F.C Order accordingly.