R.P. Nagrath, J. - (1.) PETITIONER filed the instant revision to challenge the judgment dated 03.12.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and remitted the case to the trial Court with a direction to proceed from the stage where the irregularity occurred i.e. from the stage of recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court was further directed to record the statement of the petitioner in accordance with law and thereafter to provide reasonable opportunity to him to lead defence evidence and decide the case afresh.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab,, 1992 (2) RCR (Criminal) 109 to contend that remanding the case to the trial Court under the circumstances would tantamount to allowing prosecution to fill in the lacuna, which could not be legally done. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel, I find no merit in the instant revision.
(3.) THE learned Appellate Court has observed as under: - - 10. PW -1 deposed regarding obtaining the employment of the accused and producing the forged driving licence. x . x . x . x . The investigative part of the case has been deposed by PW -3. Statement of PW -4 HC Ajaib Singh regarding the details of the driving licence and also of Kesarpal Singh, PW -5, Gurpal Singh PW -6 and Amitoj Kumar PW -7. These have not been put to the accused during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court simply put the documents to the accused. The statement of the accused, which is mandatory in nature has been recorded in casual manner only. The summarized statements of what the witnesses have deposed against the accused has not been put to the accused. The statement has been recorded in English language, which is not the own language of the accused. No certificate as required in terms of High Court Rules and Orders, Volume -II, Chapter 13 Rule 14 regarding the practical language, has been given by the Court. The recording of statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is not mere ritual, but is the mandatory duty of the Court. 11. The purpose of recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is to enable the accused personally to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. No matter how weak or scanty the prosecution evidence is in regard to certain incriminating material, it is the duty of the court to examine the accused and seek his explanation thereon. The circumstances which are not put to him in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him and have to be completely excluded from evidence. It is necessary for the Court to summarize the evidence of each witness and put the summary to the accused person in his examination. The salient points appearing in the evidence against the accused must be pointed out to him in a succinct form and he should be asked to explain them. Where the material facts were not put to the accused, it would amount to non -compliance with the mandatory provisions of law, which is a serious illegality and will certainly prejudice the rights of the accused. In the pronouncement reported as Brij Mohan v. State of Haryana, : 1986 (1) Punjab Law Reporters, 654 (P&H), it has been held that where the examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was defective, the lower appellate Court was within its right to remand the case to the trial Court for proper decision after the accused was given opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. It was also held that fresh examination of the accused will also give him a chance to explain all those circumstances.;