The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a trial court is empowered to proceed with a case without recording the accused’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the accused fails to utilize the opportunity given.

The Court upheld the conviction of Sunil Yadav for the dishonor of a cheque, reaffirming the application of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Single Bench of Justice HP Sandesh observed that the accused cannot seek a remand of the matter at their whims and fancies when due process has already been followed.

"The Court is empowered to proceed with the case without recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The mere use of word ‘may’ cannot be held to confer a discretionary power on the Court to consider or not to consider such defence, since it constitutes a valuable right of an accused for access to justice. If the accused has not bothered to remain present before the Court and also Court has to take note of the fact that complainant is running from pillar to pillar after filing of the case and when the material discloses that the accused did not bothered, Court has to exercise discretion and proceed with the case by dispensing with statement under Section 313 of the Code. The accused has no regard for directions of the Court. When such being the case, it is the discretion of the Magistrate to dispense with the recording of Section 313 of Cr.P.C," the Bench observed.

The Bench dismissed Yadav's revision petition challenging the orders passed by the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, which confirmed his conviction. "I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in dispensing the same and proceeded against the petitioner and the same cannot be a whims and fancy of the accused to seek for remand the matter when the opportunity was given to him and not utilized the same and no grounds to set-aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration," the Court ordered.

Facts of the Case

The case involved Yadav borrowing a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 from Y.C. Manju on October 6, 2015, to address his financial obligations. In a failure to repay the loan, Yadav issued a cheque on March 13, 2017, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. This led Manju to initiate legal proceedings after he failed to respond to a legal notice demanding payment.

The Trial Court, finding Yadav guilty, imposed a fine of Rs. 7,60,000, along with a default sentence of one year’s simple imprisonment. Yadav's subsequent appeal was dismissed, prompting his challenge at the High Court level.

During the hearings, Yadav's counsel argued that the Trial Court erred in dispensing with the recording of the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, thus denying him a fair opportunity to defend himself. However, the High Court, found that due process had been sufficiently followed.

Court's Observations

The Single Bench observed, “The principles of natural justice were adhered to, and the accused was given ample opportunities to present his defense. His failure to avail these opportunities does not warrant the interference of this Court.”

The Court further cited the importance of expediency in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, balancing the need for prompt resolution with the rights of the accused.

"It is also important to note that considering the factual aspect of the case as well as proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act, it is settled law that same has to be concluded expeditiously in the light of guidelines issued by the Courts from time to time for speedy disposal of the cases, the scope of Sections 142, 143 and 145 of N.I Act, it was not necessary for the Trial Court to wait for accused to make his appearance," the Court said.

Cause Title: Sunil Yadav v. Shri Y.C Manju

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Akash Sundhakar Kande

Respondent: Advocate T.S. Chandraprabha

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice HP SandeshKarnataka High Court

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.