IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.407 of 2002 Date of judgment: July 2, 2009 State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Prakash Chand …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : M. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Trial court has not examined the respondent, under Section 313 Cr. P.C, properly. Only cursory examination was done. Most of the material questions, based on the prosecution evidence, e.g., PW-1 Jagmohan stated many material facts, like capacity in which the respondent worked, his having deposited the allegedly misappropriated amount of Rs.34,940/-, in parts, on different dates, his having acknowledged that he had not accounted for the deficient amount, at the time of handing over the charge to Purshotam Chand (PW-2), were not put to him, under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Unless respondent is questioned with respect to all these material facts, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., evidence with regard to such facts cannot be used against the respondent for convicting him. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. Consequently, appeal is accepted, impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to learned Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, with a direction to examine the respondent, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., in detail, putting all the material facts and circumstances, appearing against him, in the form of questions, to enable him to explain his position, with respect to every material piece of evidence and thereafter to afford opportunity to the respondent to lead defence evidence, in case he so desires and then to dispose of the case. 4. Trial Court’s record, together with a copy of this order, be sent back, immediately. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Magistrate on 4.8.2009. July 2, 2009. (Surjit Singh), J (ss)