Crl. Rev. No.1965 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1965 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.7.2009 Dev Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The present revision petition is directed against the order, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur, whereby he set-aside the judgment of conviction of the accused/petitioner and remanded the case back to the trial court for recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellate court directed that all the incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution be put to the accused and thereafter effective opportunities be provided to him to lead his evidence within two months and the case be decided afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appellate court has wrongly remanded the case back to the trial court for recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court reported as Inspector of Customs, Akhnoor J & K v.Yash Pal and Anr., 2009(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 514 in Crl. Rev. No.1965 of 2009 2 support of his submissions. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that the petitioner was convicted by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments for six months and two years respectively under the said offences. The petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court, however, came to the conclusion that while recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the trial court had not put all incriminating evidence and material brought against the accused to him except certain vague questions. Relying upon judgment in Tara Singh vs. The State, AIR 1951 Supreme Court 441, it came to the conclusion that prejudice had been caused to the accused/petitioner, as the accused/petitioner had not been confronted with material circumstances intended to be used against him. The order passed by the court below appears to be in favour of the petitioner. The appellate court has set-aside his conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for decision afresh, as it came to the conclusion that entire material has not been put to him during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The law is well settled that provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. are intended to benefit the accused and is its corollary to benefit the court in reaching a final conclusion. Learned counsel has, however, argued the matter as if the appellate Crl. Rev. No.1965 of 2009 3 court had taken a decision against him. This is despite the fact that his conviction has been set-aside by the appellate court. Under the circumstances, this revision petition is totally misconceived. Learned counsel has not been able to elaborate how the judgment relied upon by him in Yash Pal's case (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case. I, thus, find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 31, 2009 'rajpal'