Dismissed

Tamilarasi v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC26 Jun 2015CRL OP/14798/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State challenged the single judge order in a criminal matter. The High Court noted the trial had long periods of delay and the Single Judge's reasoning was not illegal or perverse. The criminal petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition was dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Tamilarasi Vs the State Rep. by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 26.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL.OP.No.14798 of 2015

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

1.Tamilarasi 2.P.Mohan ... Petitioners

¶8

Vs The State represented by Inspector of Police, CBCID, Puducherry. ... Respondent

¶9

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 27.05.2015 made in Crl.MP.No.1425 of 2015 in C.C.No.62 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Puducherry.

¶10

For Petitioners :Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondents :Mr.Thangavel, Public Prosecutor [Puducherry]

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 27.05.2015 made in Crl.MP.No.1425 of 2015 in C.C.No.62 of 2003 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶14

It is seen that the petitioners are facing prosecution for offences under Section 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC in C.C.No.66 of 2003. The trial commenced and the prosecution examined all the witnesses and the accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the accused filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for summoning one Sivashanmugam, Deputy Commissioner [Customs], as defense witness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Dr.Rajesh Talwar Vs CBI reported in [2013] 4 MLJ Criminal 362 SC that even for examining a witness on the side of the defense, the accused cannot make sweeping request and that the request must be supported by reasons.

¶15

In this case, the accused contended that they need to examine the said Sivashanmugam for the purpose of confronting with Ex.P7, in which, he seems to have attested. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

The learned Trial Court dismissed the application holding that Ex.P7 has been marked through PW7 who had been subjected to cross examination by the accused and the request for summoning Sivashanmugam as a defense witness is only a ruse to prolong the trial. This Court finds that this case is of the year 2003 and has had a snail's progress all these years. Further, the reasoning given by the Trial Court for refusing to summon Sivashanmugam cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.

¶17

In the result, this petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gya
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID, Puducherry.
2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Puducherry.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.OP.No.14798 of 2015
SKV(CO)
EU 08.07.15

¶19

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

Tamilarasi v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilarasi v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Giridharan Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthil Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

K.a.J.Mohamed Meera Sahib Vs State by

Sanjeev Narula Vs the Inspector of Police

Chithiraimuthu, Vs State Rep.by Inspector of

E.Kesavarthini Vs the State of Tamil Nadu