P.P. Bhatt, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS by way of filing the present writ petition prayed for quashing/setting aside the statement taken under section 313 Cr.P.C. dated 16 -09 -2013 by the learned Additional Session Judge, F.T.C., IV, Dhanbad on the ground that when these petitioners have already been examined under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. on 08 -07 -2010, examination of the accused u/s. 313 second time on 16 -09 -2013 is completely abuse of the process of the court. The short fact of the case is that the petitioners were made accused in connection with Topchanchi (Hariharpur) P.S. case NO. 102 of 2000 under section 302/201 and 34 I.P.C. After commitment of the case and the examination of the prosecution witness the petitioners were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 08 -07 -2010. After closing of the evidence and conclusion of the argument the petitioners were again examined u/s. 313 on 16 -09 -2013.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the examination of the accused persons for the second time is without any valid reason and only with a view to fill up the lacuna of the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that the examination of the accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be done in a manner which can be said to be a cross examination of the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioners to support his submission referred to and relied upon the case of Ranjan Dwivedi & Anr. Vs. C.B.I. through The Director General reported in : 2008 Cri.L.J. 1440. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have not disclosed the fact that by second examination u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. what prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners' objection with regard to the examination of accused has been turned down by the learned court below by a reasoned order. The learned counsel for the respondents also referred to and relied upon decisions reported in case of Shobhit Chamar v. State of Bihar reported in : (1998) 3 scc 455, Rusi Biswal vs. Nakhyatramalini Devi & Ors. reported in : AIR 1954 Ori 65, Ajit Kumar Chowdhary Vs. State of Bihar reported in : AIR 1972 SC 2058, and Ashraf Ali Vs. The State of Assam.
(3.) BEFORE going into the merits of the case I would like to quote the provisions given under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Section 313 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: - 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 question 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;;