Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs C.B.I And Another on 28 January, 2014
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
(1)
Crl. Misc. No. M-32694 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 28, 2014.
State of Haryana
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
C.B.I and another
...... RESPONDENT (s)
(2)
Crl. Misc. No. M-41746 of 2013 (O&M)
Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
C.B.I and another
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Additional A.G. Haryana with
Mr. Raja Sharma, Asstt. A.G. Haryana
for the petitioner in CRM-M No.32694 of 2013 and
for respondent No.2 in CRM-M No.41746 of 2013.
Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate
Special Prosecutor for respondent No.1-CBI.
Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.2 in CRM-M No.32694 of 2013 and
for petitioner in CRM-M No.41746 of 2013.
Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate
for the complainant.
*****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for Mehta Sachin 2014.01.29 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.32694 of 2013 2 quashing impugned order dated 17.09.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Haryana, Panchkula vide which applications moved by petitioner State of Haryana as well as respondent No.2-accused for allowing respondent No.2-accused to answer questionnaire under Section 313 Cr.P.C. through video conferencing, were dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record.
Admitted facts are that trial in this case was conducted through video conferencing. Respondent No.2-accused was granted Z+ security by the Government of Haryana owing threat to his life at the hands of terrorists and fundamentalist organizations. State is also having apprehension of big congregations of tens of thousands of followers at various places falling in his way from Sirsa to Panchkula.
Hence, it has been pleaded on behalf of petitioner-State that it is not necessary that accused must answer the questions personally by remaining present in the Court physically and his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. may be recorded through video conferencing. Some of the witnesses were already examined through video conferencing. It is also contended that State would also incur lot of expenditure in making security arrangements for respondent No.2-accused to appear in person in the Court to answer the questions put to him by the Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
It has been stated by learned counsel for respondent No.2- accused that he is having no objection if his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded by video conferencing.
Mehta Sachin 2014.01.29 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.32694 of 2013 3
However, learned counsel for respondent No.1-C.B.I. has contended that Section 313 Cr.P.C. requires that accused should appear in person to answer the questions put to him by the Court except in summons cases and hence, it is contended that impugned order was legally passed by learned trial Court.
It is pertinent to reproduce Section 313 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-
"313. Power to examine the accused.--(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court-
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case:
Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. (5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the Mehta Sachin 2014.01.29 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.32694 of 2013 4 accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section."
A careful perusal of impugned order passed by learned trial Court shows that one of the ground, on which applications of State as well as respondent No.2-accused were dismissed is that earlier an order was passed by predecessor of the present Special Judge that accused should remain present in the Court for recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he could not review the earlier order passed by his predecessor.
In my view, there is no force in the contention of learned Counsel for C.B.I. that by recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by video conferencing, accused could not deem to be present in person before the Court, rather even by video conferencing, accused would be before the Court and the questions would be put directly by the Court to the accused who will answer the questions of the Court by video conferencing. Hence, it is not such a case in which presence of accused is being dispensed with for recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and is being sought to be recorded through counsel. Rather, instead of accused being present physically before the Court, he would be present before the Court by way of video conferencing. Moreover, trial was also held by video conferencing. No objection was raised by the side of prosecution and now, trial has been concluded and the case is fixed for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
In view of these facts, both the aforementioned petitions are accepted. Impugned order dated 17.09.2013 is set aside. As a consequence thereof, applications filed by the State as well as respondent No.2-accused for Mehta Sachin 2014.01.29 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.32694 of 2013 5 recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by way of video conferencing are allowed. Trial Court is directed to record statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by way of video conferencing.
Disposed of accordingly.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) January 28, 2014. JUDGE Sachin M. Mehta Sachin 2014.01.29 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH