Sec 313 in sec 138 of ni act
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 07 September 2011
This query is : Resolved
Sir, Gud Morning. I hav a doubt that whether 313 is necessary in cheque dishonour cases numbered as CC. If yes, wht happens if it is avoided. what can i do now. Pls suggest me.
Guest
(Expert) 07 September 2011
There is no such section 313 in the NI Act.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 07 September 2011
what he meant was section 313 CR P c .
it is for recording statement of accused
in Usha K. Pillai (1993 (3) SCR 467), held trial court has no other alternative and has no discretion to dispense with the examination of the accused personally under Section 313 of the Code.however in summons caseit can be dispensed with
Guest
(Expert) 07 September 2011
Dear Ajay,
I was quite apprehensive about the applicability of s.313 of CrPC, but the querist should also have known that his query was incomplete and misleading.
I also know that neither section 313 of the IPC, nor that of the Companies Act is applicable with particular reference to sec. 138 of the NI Act. Furthermore what he mant by "CC" is also not clear, as I don't think sub-section CC of section 313 has at any time introduced so far. He has also not referred any case law with particular reference to which he could be expected to seek clarification.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 07 September 2011
subsequenly supreme courtin basavaraj v. stae of karnataka has held that generally accused must remain present to answer questions . however if remaining present invlves practical difficultiesthe court may disepnse with his personal appearance provided if he on affidavit mentions the reasons why he is unable to remain present b)An assurance that no prejudice would be caused to him, in any manner, by dispensing with his personal presence during such questioning. (c) An undertaking that he would not raise any grievance on that score at any stage of the case. in such a case court cna give questionaire to his advocate and he can fill in questionnaire giving answers
ajay sethi
(Expert) 07 September 2011
dear Mr dhingra
in many queries incomplete information is given and we try our best to guess what must have been in mind of querist . in case we our wrong querist can always correct us
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 07 September 2011
When a query relates to procedure only lawyer practicing that law can have authoritative say ,so not practicing criminal law, i refrained despite the fact that i understood that by 313 he meant Cr.P.C.
Guest
(Expert) 07 September 2011
Dear Ajay,
Why I pointed out the deficiency of the query was with the reason that some contradictory opinions do happen to be posted on unclear question, where even the expert, who gives the correct reply on his guess, is not able to get due credit due to all such contradictory replies. So, my query was just to clear the haze just to help the experts before the experts could post their replies on one hand, and to caution the querist on the other to make a to the point question in future also.
Ravikant Soni
(Expert) 07 September 2011
Rightly explained by experts..
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 07 September 2011
I strongly stand with Dhingra ji. Querist should come with clear facts and should not lave any space for speculations if they want definite reply thereon.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 07 September 2011
