2022 (6) TMI 1482 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - refusal to accept the examination-in-chief of the accused - Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - Bare perusal of the provision of Section 315 would indicate that accused person can be competent witness, provided there is a written permission or there is a written request made to the concerned court at the instance of accused. Thus, in view of the provision of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C., accused person can be a competent witness, but before that, accused is required to request in writing to the concerned Court. It appears that the petitioner by relying upon the judgment in the case of Rakeshbhai Maganbhai Barot 2019 (1) TMI 2047 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , straightaway, sought to submit his examination-in-chief. Admittedly, no written request made to the concerned court as envisaged in Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. Keeping in mind this peculiar and distinguishing fact and the mandate of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C., in my considered opinion, both the courts below have committed no mistake in not accepting the examination-in-chief of the present petitioner. The accused preferred an application at Exh. 128 and wherein, written request appears to have been made for submitting evidence on affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. However, in the instant case, no such written request came to be made by the petitioner to the concerned Magistrate and straightaway, moved an application Exh. 80, submitting examination-in-chief. The present petition is bereft of any merits and thereby, requires to be dismissed - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the rejection of an application for examination-in-chief by the accused under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C.

Issue 1: Rejection of application for examination-in-chief

Summary: The petitioner, an accused in a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed an application for examination-in-chief which was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court, which also rejected the application. The High Court considered the provisions of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C., which require a written request from the accused to be treated as a competent witness. As the petitioner did not make such a request and directly submitted the examination-in-chief application, the High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions.

Details: The petitioner argued that the lower courts erred in rejecting the application and misinterpreted Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner contended that as per Section 315, the accused is a competent witness and should be allowed to file examination-in-chief. However, the respondent opposed, stating that the accused must specifically request in writing to be treated as a witness under Section 315. The respondent highlighted that the petitioner did not seek such permission but directly submitted the examination-in-chief application. The High Court noted that the petitioner's approach did not comply with the requirements of Section 315, which necessitates a written request from the accused.

Final Decision:
The High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner did not follow the procedure outlined in Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. The Court found that the lower courts were justified in refusing to accept the examination-in-chief without a written request from the accused. The judgment clarified the importance of adhering to legal provisions when seeking to be treated as a competent witness in a criminal case.