ORDER: The petitioners herein, who are some of the accused in the sensational bomb blast case being conducted before the learned Sessions Judge for trial of bomb blast cases, Coimbatore, have filed mis revision against the order passed by the said Court in Crl.M.P.No.675 of 2005 in S.C.No.2 of 2000, dismissing the prayer of the petitioners to circulate the questionnaire framed under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., for the purpose of seeking legal assistance and to submit written answers for the same. 2. The learned Sessions Judge, having adverted to the provision under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., chose to dismiss the prayer of the petitioners and direct them to follow the guidelines given by him in the order in CFR No.711 of 2005. The operative portion of the order in CFR No.711 of 2005 reads as follows: “(i) That the questions prepared under Sec.313 of Crl.P.C., shall be permitted to be perused by the accused. (ii) The permission shall be granted only to those accused who apply for the same. (iii) The perusal shall be permitted only in the Court Hall in the presence of the Security Personnel and Ministerial Officials during office hours. (iv) Any accused also on application shall be permitted to go through the replies given by any other accused. (v) As far as possible the questioning shall be done in the order of Sl.No. of the accused as arrayed in this case. Anyhow, if any of the accused do not turn up, the questioning process shall be done to those who are present.” 3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that totally 166 accused are facing trial in this Coimbatore bomb blast case wherein 1300 witnesses have been examined and as many as 2738 pages of the chief examination of the witnesses have been reared. The marathon trial which commenced as early as on 7.3.2002 has taken such a long time for completion of the examination of the witnesses. Now it has almost reached the stage of questioning the accused with regard to the incriminating portion of the evidence on record as against the accused under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. 4. The marathon trial which commenced as early as on 7.3.2002 has taken such a long time for completion of the examination of the witnesses. Now it has almost reached the stage of questioning the accused with regard to the incriminating portion of the evidence on record as against the accused under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the advocate on record for the petitioners would submit that as the questionnaire formulated by the learned Sessions Judge runs to 145 pages, the accused will have to be supplied with the questionnaire in order to properly appraise them of the gravity of the incriminating circumstances imputed by the witnesses with the assistance of the advocates and also to properly record their answers in the questionnaire form. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that he has no objection in supplying the compilation of the questionnaire drafted under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., in order to facilitate the accused to squarely meet the incriminating circumstances spoken to by the witnesses. He would argue that the accused have no right to fill up the questionnaire form with the assistance of the advocates, but the same will have to be recorded by the Court by. directly bringing to the notice of the accused, the implication of the imputation found in the testimony of the witnesses. 6. Sec.313, Crl.P.C., reads as follows: “Power to examine the accused.: (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused him, to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court: (a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; (b) shall after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence question him generally on the case; Provided that in a summons-case where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under Clause(b). (2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under Sub-sec.(1) (3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. (2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under Sub-sec.(1) (3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. (4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tead to show he has committed.” 7. The section contemplates fielding of question to the accused by the Court with regard to the incriminating circumstances spoken to by the witnesses and the personal explanation of the accused in regard to the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. 8. In Basavaraj R.Patil v. State of Karnataka (2000)8 S.C.C. 740 : 2001 S.C.C.(Crl.) 87: A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3214, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “ 21. But the situation to be considered now is whether, with the revolutionary change in technology of communication and transmission and the marked improvement in facilities for legal aid in the country, is it necessary that in all cases, the accused must answer, by personally remaining present in Court. We clarify that this is the requirement and would be the general rule. However, if remaining present involves undue hardship and large expense, could the Court not alleviate the difficulties. If the Court holds the view that the situation in which he made such a plea is genuine, should the Court say that he has no escape but he must undergo all the tribulations and hardships and answer such questions personally presenting himself in Court. If mere are other accused in the same case, and the Court has already completed their questioning, should they too wait for long without their case reaching finality, or without registering further progress of their trial until their co-accused is able to attend the Court personally and answer the Court questionse Why should a criminal Court be rendered helpless in such a situatione” 9. In that case, it appears that the accused was in a foreign country and he would have to undertake a tedious long distance journey spending a whopping amount solely for the purpose of answering the Court questions. In that case, it appears that the accused was in a foreign country and he would have to undertake a tedious long distance journey spending a whopping amount solely for the purpose of answering the Court questions. Under the above circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the counsel on behalf of the accused who has been authorised to plead his case may be allowed to answer such questions on his behalf. 10. Distinguishing the above authority, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police 2004 S.C.C.(Crl.) 882, held as follows: “Mr. Venugopal has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court rendered in Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka (2000)8 S.C.C. 740 : 2001 S.C.C.(Crl.) 87: A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3214, where this Court allowed the accused to dispense with personal appearance and make application to the Court praying that he may be allowed to answer the questionnaire without making his physical appearance in Court under the conditions stipulated therein. That order was rendered in exceptional exigent circumstances. The accused was in a faraway country America and he had to incur a whopping expenditure and undertake a tedious long journey solely for the purpose of answering the Court questions. This authority makes it clear that the general rule remains that the accused must answer the questions by personally remaining present in Court. It is only in exceptional circumstances that the general rule can be departed from/dispensed with.” 11. Ultimately the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in that case that there was no exceptional exigencies or circumstances warranting the accused therein to undertake a tedious long journey incurring a whopping expenditure to appear in Court to answer the questions under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. 12. In the aforesaid two cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the general rule which mandates the presence of the accused to personally answer the questions posed to him by the Court under Sec.13 , Crl.P.C., and the extraordinary circumstances under which the Court can exercise its power in the interest of justice to direct the accused to delegate the job of answering the questions under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. 13. In the present case, no such exceptional exigency has arisen. The bomb blast Court itself has been established within the premises of the Central Prison wherein the accused have been accommodated. In the present case, no such exceptional exigency has arisen. The bomb blast Court itself has been established within the premises of the Central Prison wherein the accused have been accommodated. The accused are produced regularly by the security personnel to face the trial of the case. Therefore the complication of the questionnaire cannot be handed over to the accused for the purpose of taking legal advice and also to write down their response to the incriminating circumstances in the questionnaire form. 14. The law does not mandate the Courts to circulate the compilation of questionnaires to the accused. As the voluminous evidence has been recorded by the trial Court and the complication of the questionnaire runs to 145 pages, the accused could be permitted to peruse the compilation of the questionnaires in the presence of the Court Officer and the Security Personnel in order to understand the questions fully. Further, if the accused having been already posted with the incriminating circumstances comes out with ready answers it will definitely minimize the consumption of time that may be taken by the Court for conducting the proceedings under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. 15. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that when the absentee accused has been permitted to take the assistance of the advocate, the same yardstick can be adopted for the accused who face a marathon trial. In a totally different circumstance, such facility has been extended to the accused. When such circumstances do not arise in this case, the petitioners cannot seek such a facility as the provision under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., mandates the Court to field the question and the accused to personally respond thereto. 16. The whole purpose of conducting the proceedings under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., will become an exercise in futility if the petitioners who are regularly attending the Court proceedings are permitted to take the assistance of the advocates and record their response in advance in the questionnaire form. Therefore the petitioners cannot seek for circulation of the compilation of the questionnaire in order to take legal assistance and also to record their response in advance. 17. Therefore the petitioners cannot seek for circulation of the compilation of the questionnaire in order to take legal assistance and also to record their response in advance. 17. In the result, the learned Sessions Judge for Trial of bomb blast cases, Coimbatore, is directed to permit the accused to peruse the compilation of the questionnaire in the Court hall in the presence of the Ministerial Staff and the Security Personnel during office hours and thereafter conduct the proceedings under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., as contemplated therein. None of the accused shall be permitted to go through the response of the other accused recorded in the questionnaire form. The accused also are not permitted to take the legal advice at the time of responding to the questionnaires fielded to them by the Court. 18. With the above observations, the criminal revision case stands dismissed. R.S.-----Revision dismissed.