Allowed

A.Rajkumar v. the Deputy Superident of

Madras HC4 Sept 2013CRL OP/2001/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court invoked inherent powers to set aside a trial court order dismissing an accused train driver's petition for production of documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the defence has sufficient time to prepare before witness production.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.415 of 2012 was set aside; the Section 91 petition was allowed; documents must be produced by the respondent by 13.9.2013.

A.Rajkumar Vs the Deputy Superident of — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.09.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.2001 of 2013

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2013 A.Rajkumar ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Govt. Railway Police, Chennai Central, Chennai. ... Respondent/Complaints

¶7

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records of SC No.66 of 2012 on the file of the second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District, set aside the order in Cr.M.P.No.415 of 2012 dated 03.12.2012 and allow the application.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Karthic for T.S.Gopalan and Co. For Respondents : No appearance

¶9

ORDER

¶10

Rajkumar, the sole accused, aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.415 of 2012 in the Sessions Case No.66 of 2012 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (formerly Fast Track Court), Ranipet, Vellore District, has directed this petition.

¶11

An untoward incident has taken place on a day, on the railway track, near Chitheri Railway station, between Katpadi and Arokonam. In this, 11 persons have died and number of persons have sustained injuries. At that time, petitioner had driven the illfated train. A case in Crime No.623 of 2011 has been registered by

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

the Railway Police, Arakonam. After investigation, final report has been filed before the Committal Court. The Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore. It was made over to II Additional Sessions Judge, Ranipet.

¶14

Prior to framing of charges, the petitioner filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.415 of 2012 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of certain documents furnishing list of documents, their details, their whereabouts and their need for making his effective defence.

¶15

Charges under Section 304-A, 279, 337, 338, 323, 324, 326, 304, 308 IPC and Section 3 Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of damage and Loss) Act,1992 r/w 152 Railways Act,1999 have been framed.

¶16

On 3.12.2012, the trial Court dismissed the petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. on the ground that it is intended to delay the trial, however, the trial Court given him liberty to renew his request at a later stage.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has not viewed the plea of the petitioner in proper perspective. The learned counsel further submitted that the case involves many technical aspects relating to railway operations, those documents are necessary to cross examine the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the attempt of the accused to delay the trial has been thwarted by the trial Court.

¶19

Under the scheme of administration of criminal justice devised in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, an accused is entitled to keep mum, refuse to plead.

¶20

It is basic that every one including accused persons are presumed to be innocent. It is one's basic human right.(See Article 21, Constitution of India). Till the guilt alleged as against him is established beyond all reasonable doubts, the accused is presumed to be innocent. It is the basic duty of the prosecution to prove it.

¶21

It is the basic constitutional and human right of accused persons to defend themselves as against the allegations, charges levelled against them. (See Article 21,22(1) and Section 303 Cr.P.C). They must be given reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. The defence may be based on oral statements of persons,

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

documents, material objects, or scientific reports. The documents may be somewhere. They may be in the possession of some individuals or institutions. Section 91 Cr.P.C. enables their production.

¶24

Petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. can be filed either by the prosecutor or by the defence, at any stage of the case, but before judgment.

¶25

Reasonable opportunity must be given to the accused to defend himself. It is for the defence to device the defence. It is not for the prosecution nor for the Court to direct his manner of taking the defence,.

¶26

When question of defending against the serious accusations comes, question of delay etc., pale into insignificance.

¶27

The defence has to be given sufficient opportunity well in advance to prepare well before the prosecution witness are produced. Therefore, the observation of the trial Court that the petitioner may renew his request at a later stage of the case is not correct.

¶28

Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not viewed the matter in proper perspective. The order passed by the trial Court is vitiated.

¶29

In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranipet, in Crl.M.P.No.415 of 2012 in S.C. No.66 of 2012 is set aside. Crl.M.P.415 of 2012 is allowed. By 13.9.2013, the respondent shall produce the documents listed in Crl.M.P.No.415 of 2012. The trial Court will give sufficient opportunity to the accused with reference to those documents. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶31

/ True copy /

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

rrg

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

¶36

1.The Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Ranipet,
Vellore District.
(1a) -Do- Thro' The Principal Sessions Judge,
Vellore
2.Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Govt. Railway Police,
Chennai Central, Chenna
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to M/s. T.S.Goplan & Co., Advocate sr.46958
Crl.O.P.No.2001 of 2013
RSI[CO]
RR 24/09/2013

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Rajkumar v. the Deputy Superident of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Rajkumar v. the Deputy Superident of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Sikandar Vs State Rep by

Suresh @ Dhanasekar Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Hemavathi Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Nalini Vs State Rep.by

Nagaraj Vs the State Rep by Its

L.Srinivasan Vs the Inspector of Police