IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 38 OF 2011 M. V. KRISHNAMURTHY ... Petitioner Versus KALA MINES AND MINERALS THROUGH ITS PARTNER, BIPINCHANDRA ALIAS BIPIN S. KANTAK ... Respondent Mr. Jovito Braganza, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 17th August, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Jovito Braganza, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. 2. By this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner takes exception to order dated 7.1.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji in Criminal Revision Application no. 48/2010 and order dated 4/3/2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No.OA/860/04/D by which application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in the above case for exempting him at the time of recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner was granted exemption during the course of trial. After the trial was over, the petitioner filed an application seeking exemption at the time of recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.Code which was rejected by the learned Magistrate. Petitioner thereafter filed revision application before the Sessions Court which was also dismissed. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.Code In my considered opinion having regard to the settled principles laid down by the Apex Court more particularly in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551. Revision before Sessions Court against an order rejecting an application for exemption was not maintainable. 5. Be that as it may, the Magistrate has exercised his discretion not to permit the petitioner to be examined through his Advocate under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Judgment in the case of Basvaraj R. Patil and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others (2000) 8 SCC 740, does not advance the case of the petitioner more particularly in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Keya Mukherjee Vs. Magama Leasing Limited and another, (2008) 8 SCC 447, in which Apex Court has held that it is discretion of the Magistrate whether to permit the accused to be represented by an Advocate while recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in a summons case. In my opinion it cannot be said that the jurisdiction has been exercised by the Magistrate illegally. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. Hence Writ Petition stands dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn