CASE TITLE:
Soni Anilkumar Prahladbhai Vs State Of Gujarat
DATE OF ORDER:
06TH JUNE, 2022
JUDGE(S):
HON’BLE JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
PARTIES:
PETITIONER:SONI ANILKUMAR PRAHLADBHAI
RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJRAT
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
SUBJECT
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that an accused person can be a competent witness if written permission or a written request is made to the concerned court at the accused's request under Section 315 CrPC. In the absence of a written request, it thus dismissed the petition challenging the order of the Sessions Court that denied the Petitioner's application to be treated as a witness.
BRIEF FACTS
- The Petitioner claimed that after completing the recording of additional statements under Section 313 of the CrPC before the Civil Judge, he submitted an application tendering his examination-in-chief, which was denied by the Principle Civil Judge.
- The Petitioner then filed a criminal revision application with the Sessions Judge, which was denied. As a result, the Petitioner filed the current petition in the High Court.
- It was argued that the Courts erred in rejecting the application because they did not understand the provisions of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Furthermore, Section 315 of the CrPC allows the accused Petitioner to become a competent witness for himself. Rakeshbhai Maganbhai Barot v. State of Gujarat was cited to support this claim.
- The APP, on the other hand, opposed the petition, arguing that the Petitioner-accused can treat himself as a witness for himself under Section 315 of the CrPC by filing an application.
- However, no such application for permission to be treated as a witness was filed. Instead, he filed an application at Exh 80 immediately requesting that the trial court accept the examination-in-chief.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Bench determined that the main issue worth considering was whether the trial and appellate courts' orders refusing to accept the accused's examination-in-chief were justified.
- The Bench confirmed that in order to be treated as a witness, the accused must make a written request to the relevant Court.
- After reading the examination-in-chief, the Bench noted that the Petitioner had not made a written request to the Court as required by Section 315.
- Justice Mehta said, “Keeping in mind this peculiar and distinguishing fact, as well as the mandate of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C., I believe that both courts below made the correct decision in refusing to accept the present petitioner's examination-in-chief.”
CONCLUSION
- Concerning the Rakeshbhai decision, the Bench noted that in that case, the accused had filed a written request for the examination-in-chief to be submitted.
- However, the Petitioner did not file such a request, and thus the facts of both cases were materially different. In light of the foregoing, the present petition is devoid of merit and thus must be dismissed, and it is thus dismissed.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
