Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On the other hand, Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for C.B.I, would submit that the trial has been conducted as per the procedure prescribed to try warrant cases on a police report; under Section 243 Cr.P.C, the accused has the right to produce defence witnesses, and to file defence statements; the petitioners have already divulged their defence in their Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination; even under Section 242 Cr.P.C, they have divulged their defence by producing several defence witnesses before the trial Court; the petitioners have already filed their defence statements after the Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination; once the procedure contemplated under Section 242 Cr.P.C. is completed, wherein the accused have already divulged their defence, there can be no further disclosure of their defence by the accused; and the petitioners' contention that the arguments to be made by them, under Section 314 Cr.P.C, would result in disclosure of their defence is baseless, and contrary to the provisions of Cr.P.C, as the accused have already divulged their defence before and during the Section 313 CrPC examination. Learned counsel would rely on State of Karnataka v. Annegowda13 in this regard. According to the Learned Counsel, the petitioners cannot contend that they have not so far disclosed their defence and, while submitting their arguments, they may have to disclose their defence, thereby causing the accused prejudice; the petitioners have already divulged their defence under the provisions of Cr.P.C, and nothing is left for them to further disclose; and the loopholes, pitfalls, omissions and contradictions, if any, in the CBI cases are already part of the record.