Interim Order 63

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Page 1 of 9
DLCT110002272021
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR NO.: DLCT11-000227-2021
I.A. No. 04/2026
CC No.: 29/2021
FIR No.: 14/2010
PS: ACB
U/s: 7/8/12/13 of PC Act
r/w S. 120-B IPC
In the matter of:
STATE
VERSUS
SANDEEP SINGH & ANR.
ORDER
1 Vide this order, I shall decide the application dated
21.07.2026 moved by applicant/A-2 namely Awnish
Kumar, seeking correction in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC
recorded on 17-07-2026, or in alternative, for recording
clarification in respect of question no.48 of his said
statement.
2 State has preferred not to file any written reply to the
aforesaid application. Accordingly, arguments on the
application were heard on behalf of both the sides during
pre-lunch session. I have duly considered rival submissions
made on behalf of both the sides, in the light of material
available on record, as also the authorities cited at the Bar.
-- 1 of 9 --
Page 2 of 9
3 Shorn off unnecessary details, it may be noted that after
completion of prosecution evidence on 03-06-2026, matter
was listed on 11-07-2026 for recording of Statements
under S. 313 Cr.P.C. of both the accused persons facing
trial in this case. Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of
applicant/A-2 was recorded on 17-07-2026 and then, the
matter was listed for final arguments for 05-08-2026
i.e.
today, where-after, the application in hand came to be filed
by the said accused.
4 It is stated in the application that while inspecting the
judicial record on 18-07-2026, Ld. Counsel of
applicant/A-2 noticed inadvertent typographical error in
the answer recorded to question no.48. It is further stated
in the application that relevant portion of question no.48
was inadvertently recorded as under:
“It is also incorrect that I had never made any
demand from PW-7/Neeraj Kumar Gupta or gave
any assurance to him....”
5 By way of application under consideration, the applicant/
A-2 is seeking rectification of aforesaid portion of his
answer to question no.48, by allowing it to be read as
“It is
also incorrect that I had ever made any demand....” or in
alternative, to record clarification that he had never
intended to state that he had never made any demand from
PW7.
6 After referring to the defence raised by applicant/A-2
throughout the trial, as also to the answers given by him to
other questions put to him while recording his statement
u/s 313 Cr.PC, Ld. Counsel of applicant/ A-2 submitted
-- 2 of 9 --
Page 3 of 9
that said accused has in fact denied all the allegations put
to him in question no.48, and therefore, the words ‘
never
made any demand’ are evidently result of an inadvertent
typographical error and are inconsistent with his defence.
Ld. Counsel further submitted that intended answer of
applicant/A-2 was as under:
“It is also incorrect that I had ever made any
demand from PW-7/Neeraj Kumar Gupta....”
7 Ld. Counsel further submitted that applicant/ A-2 has
consistently denied any interaction with or threat to PW7,
any acquaintance with co-accused Sandeep Singh prior to
the present proceedings, any demand of illegal
gratification, or any assurance regarding postponement of
possession etc., for which, he also referred to the answers
given by him to other questions, more particularly question
nos. 33, 44, 45, 49, 54, 55, 56 etc., put to him while
recording his statement under S. 313 Cr.PC. He contended
that inadvertent typographical error is apparent on the face
of record and no attempt is being made by applicant/ A-2
to improve, alter or substitute his defence in any manner,
and he merely seeks correction of an inadvertent
typographical error to the extent mentioned hereinabove in
response to the question no.48. He submitted that if said
error remains uncorrected, it may prejudice the defence
raised by applicant/A-2.
8 While relying upon the provision under S.362 Cr.PC, Ld.
Counsel further submitted that this Court has ample power
to rectify any clerical and arithmetical error. In order to
-- 3 of 9 --
Page 4 of 9
buttress his aforesaid submissions, Ld. Counsel also relied
upon the following judgments:
8.1 ‘
Indrakunwar v. State of Chhatisgarh’, reported as
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1364;
8.2 ‘
Hemta s/o Sekiya v. State of M.P.’ reported as
1997(1) M.P.L.J; and
8.3 ‘
Nar Singh v. State of Haryana’, reported as (2015) 1
SCC 496.
9
Per contra, the application has been opposed on behalf of
State. Ld. PP for State has argued that applicant/ A-2 had
consciously given his answer to question no.48, while
recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC and thus, it cannot
be said that relevant portion of his answer to the extent
stated hereinbefore, was an inadvertent or typographical
error, as is being claimed by applicant/A-2 in the
application in hand. He further submitted that
applicant/A-2 is trying to improve/ alter his defence under
the garb of this application and therefore, the application is
liable to be dismissed. Ld. PP further submitted that S. 362
Cr.PC is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the case, as it merely saves the power of the Court to
rectify any clerical or arithmetic error, and therefore, the
application may be dismissed.
10 In order to appreciate the rival submissions made on behalf
of both the sides, it would be apposite to reproduce
question no.48 and its answer given by applicant/ A-2 in
his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Same is extracted here under:
-- 4 of 9 --
Page 5 of 9
“xxxx
Question 48. It is further in evidence against you as deposed by
PW7 Sh. Neeraj Kumar Gupta that in the meantime,
your co-accused Sandeep Singh and you accused
Awnish continuously made him (PW7) under the
fear and on 26.03.2010, had demanded Rs.15,000/‑
from him (PW7) and you accused Awnish told him
(PW7) that after getting Rs.15,000/‑
, you accused
will get changed the date of possession as
05.04.2010. What do you have to say?
Answer. It is incorrect. I had never interacted or threatened
PW-7/Neeraj Kumar Gupta. It is also incorrect that I
knew co-accused Sandeep Singh prior to facing the
proceedings in the present case. It is also incorrect
that I had never made any demand from
PW-7/Neeraj Kumar Gupta or gave any assurance to
him, thereby changing the date of possession as
05.04.2010. PW-7 had falsely deposed so.
xxxx”
11 In view of what has been stated by applicant/A-2 in answer
to question no.48, as reproduced hereinabove, the question
which arises for consideration before this Court is as to
whether it is permissible under the law to allow such
correction to be made in answer to any particular question
put to accused while recording his statement u/s 313
Cr.PC, or not; or whether any clarification can be made in
that regard, as is being sought by applicant/ accused by
way of application in hand.
12 Before proceeding to answer the aforesaid question,
it would be relevant to note that main objective of
recording statement u/s 313 Cr.PC (now, S. 351 BNSS,
2023) is to ensure compliance of principle of natural
justice
i.e. audi alteram partem. That being so, Court
should not rely upon any apparent error or inadvertent slip
of tongue on the part of accused, in order to penalize him.
-- 5 of 9 --
Page 6 of 9
Further it is
trite law that statement under S. 313 Cr.PC
must be read as a whole and single isolated answer, cannot
be parsed out, to be used against accused while arriving at
the conclusion of his/her guilt, especially when overall
defence raised by such accused shows otherwise. In the
cited case of
Indrakunwar (
supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed in para no.35.8 of its decision that statement u/s
313 Cr.PC is to be read as a whole and one part of it
cannot be read in isolation.
13 In the cited case of
Hemta (
supra), Hon’ble High Court of
M.P., while dealing with the argument advanced on behalf
of convict/ appellant, has observed in para no.13 of the
decision, that a sentence or a word out of sentence, cannot
be read in isolation and also that sentence or a word is read
in the context and reference to the questions put and the
particular answer given to those question by a witness.
Though, said observations have been made by
Hon’ble High Court in the context of testimony of
prosecution witness, however, said observations, in the
opinion of the Court, would apply with equal force to the
statement of accused recorded in terms of S. 313 Cr.PC.
14 In the cited case of
Nar Singh (
supra), Hon’ble Apex
Court has observed that if an objection in statement u/s
313 Cr.PC is taken at the earliest stage, the Court can make
good the defect and record additional statement of accused
as that would be in the interest of all.
15 Now adverting back to the facts of the present case.
As already mentioned above, statement u/s 313 Cr.PC of
-- 6 of 9 --
Page 7 of 9
applicant/A-2 was recorded on 17-07-2026; and the
application in hand came to be filed immediately thereafter
on 24‑07‑2026, thereby pointing out to the Court that word
‘never’ was inadvertently recorded instead of
‘ever’ in
answer to question no.48 of his statement statement. Said
contention raised on behalf of applicant/ A-2, appears to be
justified and duly borne out from the record. A careful
perusal of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, more
particularly that of PW7/Neeraj Kumar Gupta examined
during trial, would go to show that applicant/ A-2 has
taken defence of denial of having demanded any amount
from PW7/Sh. Neeraj Kumar Gupta; or having known co-
accused Sandeep Singh prior to facing trial in the present
matter. Even otherwise, in case answer to question no.48,
as duly reproduced hereinbefore, is read as a whole, it
would be abundantly clear that applicant/ A-2 had denied
the contents of said question as a whole in the initial lines
of his answer, wherein he stated that “
It is incorrect. I had
never interacted or threatened PW7 Sh. Neeraj Kumar
Gupta....” and last line thereof, whereby he stated that ‘
....
PW7 had falsely deposed so.’ Moreover, answer to
relevant questions prior to question no.48; and subsequent
to question no.48, as given by applicant/A-2 in his said
statement, would not leave any scope of any doubt that he
never intended to give impression that he had demanded
any illegal gratification from PW7 Sh. Neeraj Kumar
Gupta. In other words, his entire statement u/s 313 Cr.PC
when read as a whole, would make it clear that his defence
has been of denial in so far as incriminating circumstance
-- 7 of 9 --
Page 8 of 9
regarding demand to pay illegal gratification made by him
from PW7, is concerned. In this backdrop, S. 362 Cr.PC
(S. 430 BNSS) needs to be looked into. Said provision
saves power of the Court to correct any clerical or
arithmatical error even after pronouncement of judgment
or final order, which disposes off any case.
16 In the present case, the applicant/A-2 is seeking correction
of word ‘
never’ with
‘ever’ in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC,
at the stage of final arguments. Though, there is no express
provision provided in the Code, which may allow
applicant/ A-2 to seek such correction/ clarification in his
answer to the question put to him in his statement u/s 313
Cr.PC, nevertheless, this Court while being guided by the
principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and
various Hon’ble High Court in plethora of judgments
delivered from time to time, including those cited on
behalf of applicant/A-2, is of the considered view that it
has got ample power to rectify clerical/ arithmetical error
and mistakes even during the pendency of the matter. The
real test, in the opinion of this Court, is to see as to
whether applicant/A-2 is trying to improve, alter or
substitute his defense under the garb of application, which
would cause prejudice to the prosecution, in case such
request of accused is allowed by the Court. In view of what
has been stated above, this Court is of the considered view
that the prosecution has failed to show or even point out
that the applicant/A-2 is trying to improve, alter, or modify
his defense under the garb of application in hand; or that
-- 8 of 9 --
Page 9 of 9
any prejudice would be caused to the prosecution in case
such request is allowed. Moreover, S.313 (5) Cr.PC allows
an accused to file his written statement, which would also
include pointing out correction, if any, in his answer to any
particular question(s), as were recorded in his statement
under S. 313(1) Cr.PC.
17 In the light of aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the
overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby
ordered that plea raised by applicant/A-2 in the application
under consideration, shall be treated as his written
statement within the meaning of S. 313 (5) Cr.PC; and
relevant portion of his answer to question no.48 as
explained in the application in hand, shall be considered as
his clarification to the fact that he had never made any
demand from PW7 Sh. Neeraj Kumar Gupta and never
gave any assurance to PW7 thereby changing the date of
possession as 05-04-2010. No further question direction is
called for.
18 The application stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms.
Announced in the open Court
on 5th Day of August, 2026
(Vidya Prakash)
Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB)-01
Rouse Avenue Court Complex
New Delhi.
-- 9 of 9 --