SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Crpc 313 issue discussion of Advts judges

by ·

[4/25, 08:03] Sekarreporter: Rubt Three: This Dakshinamoorthy & Ors is a case arising under 313 of Cr.P.C. I raised legal issues having far reaching consequence on the fundamental rights of an Accused under the Constitutional of India. The Madras High Court rejected my stand that the Accused is not entitled to be furnished in advance the questionnaire under Section 313 Cr.P.C. https://sekarreporter.com/rubt-three-this-dakshinamoorthy-ors-is-a-case-arising-under-313-of-cr-p-c-i-raised-legal-issues-having-far-reaching-consequence-on-the-fundamental-rights-of-an-accused-under-the-constitutional-of/
[4/25, 11:55] Sekarreporter: [4/25, 11:41] Judge Suthantheram: Mr. Rubert Barnabas mentioned about a petition filed by him raising some legal aspects in the procedure to be followed u/s 313 Cr.. P. C. He wanted a copy to be furnished to the accusef before questioning. Rubert was arguing for admission. I felt Judge was reluctant. I who was in the court for my matter stood up on my own and expressed about the difficulty in answering for accused in CBI courts since long questions were put reproducing the evidence mixed with incriminating and non incriminating materials. Judge admitted and ordered notice. But I was not aware of the final argument and disposal of the petition and I came to know only when the order was reported in L. W. Crl.
Mr Rubert now stated that after 15 years Supreme Court supported his view in a case from Manipur.
He may send it to my e mail address just for understanding.
kalaivanisudanthiram @gmail.com
[4/25, 11:54] Sekarreporter: šŸŒ¹šŸŒ¹
[4/25, 13:58] Sekarreporter: [4/25, 13:32] Manisankar former Aag: True. However Honā€™ble Supreme Court permitted the Accused (in the same case) to peruse the unmarked documents to effectively answer question u/s 313(b) Crpc. Pl see (2012) 9 SCC 771.
[4/25, 13:40] Sekarreporter: šŸ™šŸ½šŸ™šŸ½šŸŒ¹šŸŒ¹
[4/25, 13:58] Sekarreporter: [4/25, 13:45] K. Chandru Former Judge Of Highcourt: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/05/28/del-hc-accuseds-application-for-advance-copy-of-questionnaire-in-terms-of-s-3135-crpc-rejected-in-absence-of-any-exceptional-circumstances/
[4/25, 13:46] K. Chandru Former Judge Of Highcourt: Delhi High court declined the request to supply questions in advance under 313 Croc.
[4/25, 15:42] Sekarreporter: [4/25, 15:03] Rubt Three: M/s. Chandru Suthenthiram JJ & Manishankar : This is 2002 issue. When I lost the 313 issue before Justice Nagappan I took up the matter to Supreme Court through SC Legal Aid. My papers were circulated to all members and Dr. Mahajan put a note and circulated that the issues raised by the learned Counsel Mr. Rupert J.Barnabas is an important issue involving accused fundamental rights and there is no precedent to it from SC and no HC has decided and therefore an authoritative judgment of SC is required on those issues raised and therefore SLP to be filed and itā€™s a fit case to appoint a Senior Counsel to conduct the case and all the members agreed to it and accordingly O.P. Sharma was appointed and Counsel on record was Adv Jena from Orissa and he pressed me several times to come and argue the case but I informed him that my clients canā€™t afford bear the expenditure for me. Unfortunately Senior Advocate could not appear as fell sick and the bench refused for an adjournment on hearing the other side and said to drag the proceedings such issues are taken which in reality it was untrue. Supreme Court dismissed it. In a way am happy my long battle came to force after a decade and a half by Supreme Court to hold Accused are entitled to the questionnaires under sec 313 in Langpoklakpam Kiranjit Singh v. The State of Manipur
[4/25, 15:41] Sekarreporter: šŸ™šŸ½šŸ™šŸ½
[4/25, 15:41] Sekarreporter: šŸŒ¹

You may also like...