Sec 313 and CrPC Amdt Act 2008

Assumi Ji

Already posted at 3rd listing as above but still for your reference being posted

"(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.".

I REQUEST ALL MEMBERS TO DELIBERATE ON THE IMPLICATION OF THIS SUB SECTION SINCE IT IS HAVING FAR REACHING IMPLICATIONS ON THE TRAIL.

SANJEEV

Sanjeev, sory for my lapses. Should we read the word may as mandatory or simply a directory? if the Prosecutor and the defence Counsel agrred for filing of written statements of the acused can the court reject the prayer?

"May" is not mandatory, but that dos not mean written statement of accused can be arbitrarily rejected. If the presiding officer wants to reject the written statement only after assigning convincing reason the same can be rejected.

Dear Members

There are two portion in this section:

First Portion:

"(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused "

This portion means that it is the disrecretion of the magistrate to take help so he is not under obligation to take help to prepare the questions to be put forward to accuseds/defendents. He may himself prepare and do the things  so first portion makes the preparation discretionary. Defence or prosecution can not challenge on the basis that they have not been consulted for questions.

the second portion is aslo discretion of the presiding officer of the court:

"the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.".

the accused or defendents may prefer an application to the Magistrate to allow them to give them written statement through cousel rather than being present them in person. The magistrate may having regard to case file may allow the defendents/accused.

I request to further elabarate and deliberate on my interpretation.

This section has benefited the defendents who are required to be present in case in person in court on fictitous/frivious/counter blast cases in which prima facie no case is made out even after case is made out by petitioners in connivance.

sanjeev

Res Arvind ji

Pls deliberate on my opinion on Sec.313(5)

sanjeev

Res Menon Ji

Pls deliberate on my opinion on Sec 313(5)

sanjeev

Sec. 313(5): Very good discussion. Yes, sometimes even judiciary in small towns are not aware of the latest updates in the acts. It is also true that the court has some discretionary powers whether or not to allow a particular procedure, question or application. However, when the law is clear, as per the SC verdict, no judge can be wiser than the written statute. They must accept the amended procedure when brought to notice.

However, in Civil cases, now-a-days both oral and written arguments are accepted. Written arguments remain forever for everybody to read and cannot be ignored whereas oral arguments may be wrongly written or misconstrued. Another important point is that during the examination the facial expressions of the accused are easily noticeable and from it it may be inferred is he is telling the truth or lying.

The new sub sec. (5) is added, as per me, to facilitate the trial and provide ease to the parties as well as the court. However, I am of the opinion that questions prepared by Stenos may be biased or faulty and may lead to miscarriage of justice. So all these points have to be kept in mind while taking help of any such procedure.

But how the court can be convinced to give benefit of this newly inserted section to the litigants. Since now a days the court and lawyers are used to set procedures. Whenever there is depart from the set procedure the court is to be convinced.

This section 313(5) is having some impression of UK system where before proceeding the case the defence and prosecution meet to decide whether to the case is fit to proceed with having regard to the doucments and evidence available.

But this section has not been deliberated very much on this platform despite this platform has very good learned members.

I request all members to deliberate on this sectio since the implication of this section is going to affect each lawyer, petitioner, defendent, court  or any one associated with litigation.

sanjeev

IT IS OUR DUTY TO IMPLIMENT IN COURTS 313 (5) AND  ALSO WRITTEN ARGUMENTS TO PROTECT ACCUSED. WE KNOW OUR MAGISTRATES ATTIDUTES TOWARDS ACCUSED AND ADVOCATES IN CRIMINAL COURTS. SLOWLY THEY GET CHANGE BY THE ADVANCED TECH ADVOCATES ADVANCE INFORMATION ABOUT GEGETTED LAW ETC.,.

TO ALL MEMBERS

FURTHER DELIBERATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR SEC 313(5)

I THINK OUR LERNED MEMBERS ARE NOT DELIBERATING THIS SECTION OPENLY SINCE THEY ARE AFRAID THAT PEOPLE/OTHER MEMEBRS  WILL LEARN AND THEY DO NOT WANT TO SHARE  THEIR  WISDOM FREELY DISTRIBUTED. ONLY 5 MEMBERS OUT OF 65084 MEBERS CONTRIBUTED THEIR SUGGESTIONS.

IS NOT THIS FIGURE UNIMAGINABLE

SANJEEV

TO ALL MEMBERS

FURTHER DELIBERATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR SEC 313(5)

I THINK OUR LERNED MEMBERS ARE NOT DELIBERATING THIS SECTION OPENLY SINCE THEY ARE AFRAID THAT PEOPLE/OTHER MEMEBRS  WILL LEARN AND THEY DO NOT WANT TO SHARE  THEIR  WISDOM FREELY DISTRIBUTED. ONLY 5 MEMBERS OUT OF 65084 MEBERS CONTRIBUTED THEIR SUGGESTIONS.

IS NOT THIS FIGURE UNIMAGINABLE

SANJEEV

TO ALL MEMBERS

DELIBERATE ON SEC 313(5)

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AMENDMENT

SANJEEV

TO ALL MEMBERS

FURTHER DELIBERATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR SEC 313(5)

I THINK OUR LERNED MEMBERS ARE NOT DELIBERATING THIS SECTION OPENLY SINCE THEY ARE AFRAID THAT PEOPLE/OTHER MEMEBRS  WILL LEARN AND THEY DO NOT WANT TO SHARE  THEIR  WISDOM FREELY DISTRIBUTED. ONLY 5 MEMBERS OUT OF 65084 MEBERS CONTRIBUTED THEIR SUGGESTIONS.

IS NOT THIS FIGURE UNIMAGINABLE

SANJEEV

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Re-313-5-ap-high-court-judgment-42338.asp

You may read Basavaraj R.Patil vs. state of Karnataka decided on 11.10.2000 Reported 2000 Cr.L.J. 4604

Then keya Mukharji 's case appex court in 2008.  Very useful will be the judgement of Delhi High Court in

United Phosphorus Ltds. vs. Sumitra Narain decided on 15.3.2011 which also considers provisions of section

313 sub section (5) cr.p.c.. I do not have the reported citetion. But you may download it from https:/www.indiankanoon.doc/98508165 . a very good judgement discusses  most of the earlier vews on the touch stone of amended 313(5) cr.p.c.