Pre-Cross Examination Recording U/S 313 CrPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Absent Prejudice: Karnataka High Court Upholds NI Act Conviction
Where incriminating material is put to the accused and no further evidence is led, the timing of the Section 313 examination is a procedural irregularity.
The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench has held that recording an accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC prior to the cross-examination of the complainant does not vitiate a summons trial under the Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the absence of demonstrated prejudice. The Court clarified that where the incriminating material, comprising the complainant’s sworn statement and documentary exhibits, is already put to the accused, the sequence of recording such statement does not render the proceedings illegal.
The Court further noted that Section 313 CrPC is intended to afford the accused an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence, and its validity depends on whether such opportunity is effectively provided. In cases where no additional prosecution evidence is led after recording the statement, objections based solely on timing amount to procedural technicalities that cannot invalidate an otherwise fair trial.
Justice H.P. Sandesh while dismissing a criminal revision petition challenging concurrent findings of conviction, observed, “…nowhere in 313 statement, it is stated that only after the cross examination of prosecution witness, 313 statement has to be recorded…It is not the case of the petitioner that 313 statement was not recorded, but it was recorded, not after the cross examination, but after treating the sworn statement as the evidence of the complainant and marking the documents of Ex.P1 to P5 of the prosecution witness and hence, it will not cause any prejudice on the part of the petitioner. When such material available before the Court, only on the ground of technicality, this Court cannot interfere with the original jurisdiction”.
Advocate Yash R. Nadkarni appeared for the petitioner and Advocate S.H. Yadawad for the respondent.
The matter pertained to a hand loan of ₹2,50,000 advanced by the respondent, to the petitioner, in 2010. A cheque issued towards repayment was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and despite service of statutory notice, no payment or reply was made, leading to prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The trial court convicted the petitioner and imposed a fine of ₹2,61,000, which was affirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. In revision, the petitioner contended that the trial was vitiated as the Section 313 statement had been recorded on the same day as the plea, prior to completion of cross-examination.
Rejecting the contention, the Court held that Section 313(1)(a) permits examination of the accused at any stage. It noted that the complainant’s sworn statement had been treated as evidence, documents were marked in the presence of the accused, and full opportunity was granted to cross-examine and lead defence evidence. As no further prosecution material was introduced thereafter, the Court found that no prejudice was caused.
On merits, the Court observed that issuance of the cheque and service of notice were undisputed, and the accused had failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Finding no illegality in the concurrent findings, the Court dismissed the revision petition.
Cause Title: Gundu Sidray Birje v. Pundalik Gundu Patil (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:5462)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Yash R. Nadkarni, Vitthal S. Teli, Advocates.
Respondent: S.H. Yadawad, Advocate.