JUDGMENT K.C. Bhargava 1. This is a revision against the order dated 16.8.83 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge remanding the proceedings to try afresh from the stage of recording statement of accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned Government Advocate has been heard. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that in the present case the Trial court had convicted the accused persons and sentenced them, against which they filed an appeal. The appeal was allowed and the case was remanded back as mentioned above. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants-revisionists have filed the present revision challenging the validity of the remand order passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge. 3. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the remand order could not have been passed on the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the learned counsel, the court has not correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 313, Cr. P.C, Section 313, Cr. P.C., provides for examination of the accused and deals with the power of the court. 4. Sub-clause (a) of Section 313 (1) provides that the court may ask any question from the accused at any stage of the trial. SUB-clause (b) deals with the questioning of the accused generally on the case after prosecution witnesses are examined. In the present case the court, after the evidence of the prosecution was over, examined the accused by putting only one question as to what he has to say about the evidence given by the witnesses and the documents on record. Other question was about production of evidence in defence and any other material on which he relies. The learned court below has held that the words question him generally on the case' appearing in Sub-clause (b) of Section 313 (1) does not mean that only a single question should be asked. 5. The object of Section 313, Cr. P.C. is to question the accused on the circumstances which appear against him during the course of examination of the witnesses and the documents which contain material against the accused. It means that the accused has to be questioned on each material circumstance which appear against him in the evidence and separate questions should specifically be put to the accused on each material fact. It means that the accused has to be questioned on each material circumstance which appear against him in the evidence and separate questions should specifically be put to the accused on each material fact. If it has not been done, it amounts, to a serious illegality which may vitiate the trial if prejudice is caused to the accused. It may also be stated at this stage that if the illegality is such that it does not occasion the failure of justice or does not cause any prejudice to the accused, then it is curable under Section 465, Cr. P.C. 6. In the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, 1995 SCC (Cri) 60, provisions of Section 313, Cr. P.C have been explained. In that case no question relating to motive for commission of the crime was put to the accused. On the basis of these facts it was held that it has always been regarded unfair to rely upon any incriminating circumstances without affording the accused an opportunity of explaining the said incriminating circumstance. The provisions in Section 313, therefore, make it obligatory on the court to question the accused on the evidence and circumstance appearing against him so as to apprise him the exact case which he is required to meet. But it would not be enough for the accused to show that he has not been questioned or examined on a particular circumstance, but he must also show that such non-examination has actually and materially prejudiced him and has resulted in failure of justice. Therefore, in view of the case law on this subject the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in remanding the case for proceeding from the stage of Section 313 Cr. P.C. The Trial court has been directed to re-examine the accused under the provisions of this Section so that the questions on every circumstances which appear against the accused during the course of evidence, may be put to him and thereafter the case be decided on merits. Learned IV Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, not committed any illegality which may compel this Court to interfere in the order. 7. The revision has no force and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let the lower court file be transmitted to the court below immediately. Revision dismissed.