JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. Both these revision petitions filed by the accused-petitioner involve the identical question of law, hence taken-up together for their decision to avoid conflicting judgment. 2. The petitioner, hereinafter to be referred as the accused, is facing trial before the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in both the cases, wherein the evidence of the respondent, who is complainant is over and the learned trial Court on the conclusion of the evidence recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short the Code. The accused opted to lead evidence in defence. The matter was adjourned for 8.12.2011 on which date an application was moved for bifurcating question No.3 put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code on 3.11.2011 to seek clarificatory explanation. The grievance of the accused is summed up in para-2 of the application, which is supported by his affidavit. It reads as under: "That while recording statement of the accused/respondent this Honble Court posed a composite question bearing question No.3 and the accused/respondent has answered the question as "Yeh Theek Hai" whereas the respondent/accused has answered the part of question pertaining to "it has further come in evidence that you accused awarded the construction work i.e. construction of approach road from left bank bifurcating point RD 36/0- 00 meters to Adit-to total gate at Nathpa by Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigham Jhakri". Whereas the answer recorded pertains to other allegations including above part which the accused couldnt comprehend and answer given was never intended to thereby, the great prejudice has been caused to the accused/respondent." 3. The contention so raised by the accused was resisted and contested by the respondent herein by filing the reply by the complainant denying that the said question was composite one and further that the question was framed by the Court in accordance with law so as to enable him to know what the accused was to explain and what was the circumstance which was against him for which an explanation was needed. The answer was given by the accused after appreciating and understanding the question put to him and denied that any prejudice was caused to him. 4. The answer was given by the accused after appreciating and understanding the question put to him and denied that any prejudice was caused to him. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application filed by the accused on 9.4.2013 against which the present petitions have been preferred. 5. Shri R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Shri Inderjeet Singh Narwal, Advocate, vehemently argued that question No.3 put to the accused was composite. The accused could not comprehend the question put in single question, containing various attendant circumstances, by which the accused was misled in giving proper answer, which caused prejudice to him. Further that it is the duty of the learned Court to put question separately, distinctly and specifically to elicit the explanation from the accused which is not done in the present case. It is also argued that while deciding the application, the learned trial Court has touched the merits of the case, which is unwarranted. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. 6. Contra, Shri Bhupinder Ahuja, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the contentions raised by the accused are afterthought. The accused answered the questions in affirmative after fully understanding its consequences and no prejudice has been caused to him. It is also contended in the application, the accused admitted that first part of the question was correct whereas qua other parts accused could have given a different answer, therefore, the admission so made cannot be allowed to be retracted by the accused. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record. 8. Section 313 of the "Code" empowers the Court to examine the accused at any time during the inquiry or trial for seeking explanation to the circumstances, which are found attendant upon him. This Section reads as under: "313. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record. 8. Section 313 of the "Code" empowers the Court to examine the accused at any time during the inquiry or trial for seeking explanation to the circumstances, which are found attendant upon him. This Section reads as under: "313. Power to examine the accused:- (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally 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-section (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 tend to show he has committed. [(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.]" 9. Precisely, the object of empowering the Court to examine the accused is to give him an opportunity of explaining any circumstance which may tend to incriminate him and thus to enable the Court, in case where the accused is undefended, to examine the witnesses in his interest. It is a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused, if a point in evidence is important against the accused and conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. It is a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused, if a point in evidence is important against the accused and conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. The purpose of examining the accused not to lay a trap but is to bring the substance of accusation to the notice of the accused. Though, the questioning under Clause (1)(a) is discretionary, the questioning under Clause (1)(b) is mandatory. As already stated above, the object is to afford an opportunity to the accused to personally explain any circumstance, appearing in evidence against him. It is based upon the principle of Audi Alteram Partem. In Ganesh Gogoi v. State of Assam (2009) 7 SCC 404 , the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 313 are for the benefit of the accused and to give the accused an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. [Please also see Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 740 ]. 10. Further, in Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana 2013 CRI.L.J. 56 (Supreme Court), the Supreme Court in para 24 also held as under: "24. It is obligatory on the part of accused, while being examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation, even in a case of circumstantial evidence, so to decide, whether or not, the chain of circumstances is complete. The aforesaid judgment has been approved and followed in Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 748 . The Transport Commissioner, A.P. Hyderabad & Anr. v. S. Sardar Ali & Ors. AIR 1983 SC 1225 ." 11. Reliance can also be placed on Asraf Ali v. State of Assam, (2008) 16 SCC 328 and State of U.P. v. Mohd. Iqram & Anr. AIR 2011 SC 2296 . 12. The Supreme Court in Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 341 , in the following paragraphs observed as under: "12. AIR 1983 SC 1225 ." 11. Reliance can also be placed on Asraf Ali v. State of Assam, (2008) 16 SCC 328 and State of U.P. v. Mohd. Iqram & Anr. AIR 2011 SC 2296 . 12. The Supreme Court in Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 341 , in the following paragraphs observed as under: "12. The purpose of Section 313 of the Code is set out in its opening words- "for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him." In Hate Singh, Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat it has been laid down by Bose, J. (AIR p.469, para 8) that the statements of accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Code "are among the most important matters to be considered at the trial". It was pointed out that: (AIR p. 470, para 8) "8.. The statements of the accused recorded by the committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in England and in America he would be free to state in his own way in the witness box [and that] they have to be received in evidence and treated as evidence and be duly considered at the trial". This position remains unaltered even after the insertion of Section 315 in the Code and any statement under Section 313 has to be considered in the same way as if Section 315 is not there. 13. The object of examination under this Section is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the case made against him. This statement can be taken into consideration in judging his innocence or guilt. Where there is an onus on the accused to discharge, it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case if such statement discharges the onus. 14. The word "generally" in sub-section (1)(b) does not limit the nature of the questioning to one or more questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it means that the question should relate to the whole case generally and should also be limited to any particular part or parts of it. The question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are against him and for which an explanation is needed. The question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are against him and for which an explanation is needed. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him and that the questions must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. A conviction based on the accused's failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. The whole object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific points in the charge and in the evidence on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused so that he may be able to give such explanation as he desires to give. 15. The importance of observing faithfully and fairly the provisions of Section 313 of the Code cannot be too strongly stressed: "30..... It is not sufficient compliance to string together a long series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say about them. He must be questioned separately about each material substance which is intended to be used against him... The questionings must be fair and couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. Even when an accused is not illiterate, his mind is apt to be perturbed when he is facing a charge of murder. Fairness, therefore, requires that each material circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is perturbed or confused, can readily appreciate and understand." [Emphasis mine] 13. Keeping in view the object of Section 313 of the Code and the principle of law laid down by the apex Court, in my opinion, in the instant case, the learned trial Court was required to put the questions separately, distinctly and specifically to the accused and composite and long questions should have been avoided, because the accused is to render explanation of each and every circumstance appearing in evidence against him for the appreciation of the Court in the light of evidence on record. In other words, the bundling of so many circumstances in one question should be avoided, as it could cause prejudice, hamper justice and fair play. 14. The questions put to the accused in this case are bundling of various circumstances in one question which could have confused the accused either by denying or admitting it by him in one word. He should have been given an opportunity to explain each and every circumstance by putting short, separate and distinct questions. The way, the questions have been put to the accused with respect to the circumstances which were appearing against the accused is deprecated. Therefore, the accused is within his right to agitate the framing of the questions before the conclusion of the trial. 15. The learned trial Court even inspite of bringing the defect to its notice did not bother to re-cast the circumstances in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order is indefensible, as such set aside, the petitions are allowed; as a consequence, the learned trial Court is directed to re-frame the short questions eliciting the explanation from the accused qua the circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused particularly keeping into mind the first part of question No.3 which, according to the accused was admitted as stated above. 16. Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Interim orders dated 22.4.2013 passed in both the above petitions stand vacated. 17. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 30.9.2013. Record of the learned trial Court be returned forthwith so as to reach well before the date fixed.