Allowed

Arumugam v. State Rep. by Its

Madras HC29 Apr 2015CRL OP/11042/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., setting aside an impugned order dismissing an application to recall a witness. The Court held that Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not restricted to specific stages and recalled PW-1 for re-examination to ensure effective defence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 10.4.2015 setting aside recalling PW-1 on 15.5.2015; directed Chief Judicial Magistrate to give reasonable opportunity to both sides.

Arumugam Vs State Rep. by Its — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29-04-2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DEVADASS

¶5

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.11042 of 2015 AND

¶6

M.P.NO.1 OF 2015

¶7

1.Arumugam 2.Govindasamy .. Petitioners/Accused vs. The State represented by its Station House Officer, Vigilance Anti-Corruption Police Station, Puducherry. .. Respondent/Complainant

¶8

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 10.4.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.981 of 2015 in C.C.No.110 of 2004 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Veeraraghavan For Respondent : Mr.M.R.Thangavel, Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry). O R D E R

¶10

A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.110 of 2004 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry aggrieved by the dismissal of their Crl.M.P.No.981 of 2015 filed in C.C.No.110 of 2004 to recall PW-1 seeks revision of the impugned order dated 10.4.2015.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.

¶12

Now the case is proceeding towards its last journey, chief-examination of the Investigation Officer is over.

¶13

At this juncture, the petitioners wants recalling of PW1/Shankar to cross-examine him on certain vital aspects, as part of effective defence.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that chief-examination of PW-1 was over nearly a decade ago, now, petitioners wants to procrastinate the trial of the case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

We cannot restrict the stage within which Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. The principle behind Section 311 Cr.P.C., is

¶16

that the required and relevant evidence has to be brought to the notice of the Court by either side to render correct finding and justice. It is extension of principles of natural justice to criminal law.

¶17

Now in the facts and circumstances, the defence has to be facilitated to put up effective defence, otherwise defence will be prejudiced. We also took note of the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. So, striking a balance between the two divergent views, an order with pragmatism has to be passed.

¶18

In the circumstances, ordered as under:-

¶19

(i) The order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry passed in Crl.M.P.No.981 of 2015 in C.C.No.110 of 2004 dated 10.4.2015 is set aside;

¶20

(ii) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry will recall PW-1 for his examination on 15.5.2015;

¶21

(iii) The said Judge will give reasonable opportunity to both sides.

¶22

Accordingly the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

Copy to:

¶24

1.The Station House Officer, Vigilance Anti-Corruption Police Station, Puducherry.

¶25

2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.

¶26

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.

¶27

rv(co) krd 30/4

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.11042 of 2015

¶29

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

Arumugam v. State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam v. State Rep. by Its

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.Soundararajan Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Suresh Ananth Vs the State Rep. by

Gowri Shankar Vs Dhanam

Fusaram Raj Purohit Vs State

Arumugam Vs State Rep. by Its

A.v.Shanmugasundaram Vs the Deputy Superintendent of