Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 819 (PNJ)

Shahzad Ail v. State Of Haryana

2000-07-31

V.M.JAIN

body2000
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C., seeking quashment of the order dated 24.12.1999 passed by the JMIC recording further statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. 2. The Trial Court record was summoned. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after having recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. on 7.12.1999, there was absolutely no occasion for the trial Magistrate to have further recorded the statement of the accused on 24.12.1999. 3. A perusal of the trial Court file would show that vide order dated 25.11.1999, the remaining evidence of the prosecution was closed by Court order and the case was adjourned to 6.12.1999 for recording the statement of the accused, on which date, it was adjourned to 7.12.1999. The trial Court record would further show that on 7.12.1999, the statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.PC was recorded, in which he denied having written letter Ex. P4. Thereafter, on 7.12.1999, the case was adjourned to 24.12.1999 for defence evidence, if any, and for arguments. On 24.12.1999, the learned trial Magistrate passed the following order : "On 7.12.1999, statement of the accused Shahjad All was recorded in which he denied his signatures on letter Ex. P4. Today, his specimen signatures were taken and he was told that the signatures would be sent for comparison with the signatures on letter Ex. P4 before the FSL, but the accused has made a separate statement vide which he has admitted his signatures. Now, the case to come up on 18.1.2000 for DWs. and arguments." 4. It is against this order dated 24.12.1999 passed by the trial Magistrate that the accused has filed the present petition in this Court under Section 482, Cr. PC. 5. As referred to above, the statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. PC, was recorded on 7.12.1999, in which he denied having written letter Ex. P4. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for defence evidence. PC. 5. As referred to above, the statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. PC, was recorded on 7.12.1999, in which he denied having written letter Ex. P4. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for defence evidence. On the adjourned date, as referred to above, when the specimen signatures of the accused were obtained by the Court for the purposes of comparison with the disputed signatures (the sheet containing the specimen signatures dated 24.12.1999 is available on the trial Court file) the accused made the statement on 24.12.1999, in which he admitted the signatures on the letter Ex. P4 and proceeded to give his explanation. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, no case is made out for interfering with the proceedings held on the 24 12.1999, on the made facts and circumstances of the present case. Apparently, the accued made the supplementary statement on 24.12.1999, after he had come to know that his specimen signatures would be sent to the FSL for the purposes of comparison with the disputed signatures, on the letter Ex. P4. That being so, it could not be said that the supplementary statement dated 24.12.1999 was the result of any pressure or threat, nor could it be said that there was no occasion for the trial Magistrate to have recorded the supplementary statement of the accused - petitioner on 24.12.1999. In view of the above, finding no merit in this petition, it is hereby The trial Court file be sent back forth with.