1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1288 of 2009 (Nagorao Punjabrao Kumare v. State of Maharashtra) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri R.P. Joshi, Advocate for Applicant. Shri O.D. Kakde, APP for Non-Applicant No.1. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 2nd April, 2009 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Notice to non-applicant No.1/State alone. Shri O.D. Kakde, learned APP, waives service for non-applicant No.1. This application under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes disturbing allegations about events in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Yavatmal. The learned counsel for the applicant has made available for my perusal xerox certified copy of the statement of the accused recorded by the learned Judge. It appears therefrom that in answer to Question No.5, the accused had stated that “It was false”, but the word 'false' is scored out and the word 'true' is written. It is possible that the recording initially was incorrect and, therefore, the learned Judge was 2 required to correct it. There is a grievance in respect of some other answers as well. The learned Judge would undoubtedly bear in mind that the object of statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to afford an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him in evidence. The statement itself does not furnish evidence of facts which constitute the charge. Bearing this in mind, if the accused has immediately brought to the notice of the learned Judge that the statement was not correctly recorded or has sought to correct his responses to the statement, the learned Judge would undoubtedly take into consideration such corrected responses. The prevailing system of criminal justice does not permit the accused being put to cross-examine in order to elicit evidence against him. Considering this, a senior Judicial Officer, like the learned Additional Sessions Judge, would undoubtedly not be influenced by the stray admission made in course of statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This should set at rest the apprehensions of the applicant that he would not receive justice at the hands of the learned Judge. In any case, whatever view the learned Judge takes, it would be open to the applicant to point out errors therein by preferring an appeal before this Court. Therefore, at this stage, it would be inadvisable to transfer the Sessions Case from the Court of the learned Judge, particularly after entire trial is over and the statement of accused is 3 recorded. The learned Judge shall hear the arguments of the defence and conclude the trial as early as possible. The learned Additional Sessions Judge would undoubtedly deal with the matter with free and open mind uninfluenced by whatever skirmishes that took place in his Court at the time of trial. The occasion to issue non-bailable warrant against the accused arose possibly because the accused remained absent before the Judge. The learned counsel states that his client would remain present before the learned Judge on the next date of hearing. In view of this, there should be no reason for execution of the non-bailable warrant. If necessary, the learned Additional Sessions Judge may at worst insist on fresh bonds. The learned APP undertakes to inform the police that the warrant may be held back since the applicant would voluntarily appear before the Sessions Court. The application is disposed of. Judge. Pdl.