Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 211 (MP)

SHIVCHARAN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2009-02-12

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) APPLICANT Shivcharan has filed Criminal Revision No. 119/09 aggrieved by the order dated 30-1 -2009 passed by First additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Ses-sions Trial No. 99/08, whereby ordered for rejection of the written statement filed by the applicant/accused under the provisions of Section 233 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2. ) MISC. Cri. Case No. 1 107/09 has been filed by the defence counsel of the applicant/ accused, aggrieved by the remark made by the trial Court against the defence counsel prem Kumar Sood in the aforesaid order dated 30-1 -2009 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna. ( 3-4. ) AS in both these cases the impugned order dated 30-1-2009 passed by the trial court is under challenge, hence both these matters are being decided commonly by this common order. Sessions Trial No. 99/08 pending before the First Additional Sessions judge, Guna. On 30-1-2009 the case was fixed for recording of the statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313, cr. P. C. After the statement of the accused counsel for the applicant has filed written statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 233 (2), Cr. P. C. after taking signatures of the applicant before the court. At that time learned trial Court as read over the statement filed by the accuse as written statement and made certain emarks against the defence counsel that he h d got signatures of the accused without reading the written statement to the accused and also gave a finding that this written statement cannot be looked into as per the provisions of Section 233 (2), Cr. P. C. Aggrieved by the uncalled remarks made by the trial court against the defence counsel and against the finding that the aforesaid statement cannot be looked into by the trial court, the applicant came up before this court by this revision/petition. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. ( 6. ) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per provisions of Section 233 (2), Cr. P. C. , the accused has right to file a written statement apart from the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. ( 6. ) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per provisions of Section 233 (2), Cr. P. C. , the accused has right to file a written statement apart from the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. in his defence and trial Court at the time of consideration of the total case against the applicant may look into this written statement for the clarification given by the accused in his defence. There is no specific procedure provided for submission of the written statement under Section 233 (2), Cr. P. C. The learned trial Court has made un called remarks against the defence counsel that he has not read over the statement to the accused before he got signatures of the accused on this written statement and in view of that, also wrongly gave the finding that this statement cannot be looked into as per provisions of Section 233 (2), Cr. P. C. The aforesaid finding and remarks made by the trial Court is illegal, erroneous and liable to be set aside. ( 7. ) LEARNED Government for the State suppored the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of both revision petition as well as the petition u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. ( 8. ) AFTER considering the rival contentions of both the counsel and on perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that when there is no specific procedure provided for submission of the written statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 233 (2), Cr. P. C. then if the accused chooses to file the written statement duly signed by him then certainly the Court ought to take it on record and consider it according to law. Whatever effect of the written statement of the accused will have, it can be considered only at the stage of final judgment and after hearing the arguments of both the counsel. The aforesaid remark made by the trial Court against the defence counsel also appears to be unwarranted and the trial Court cannot refuse to take the written statement on record also. ( 9. ) IN view of that, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside. ( 10. ) RESULTANTLY, the revision petition succeeds and is allowed. ( 9. ) IN view of that, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside. ( 10. ) RESULTANTLY, the revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is modified and it is also directed to the trial Court that the written statement filed by the accused be taken on record and it be considered after hearing the final arguments at the time of final judgment, whatever effect may be by this written statement. ( 11. ) SIMILARLY the petition filed under section 482, Cr. P. C. by the defence counsel Prem Kumar Sood is also allowed and the unwarranted remark made by the trial court against him is also hereby quashed. ( 12. ) CERTIFIED copy today. ( 13. ) A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. Petition allowed.