Allowed

R.Arivazhakan v. P.Kandasamy

Madras HC23 Nov 2015CRL RC/1051/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision was filed to set aside an order dismissing an application for recall of a defence witness due to failure to pay costs. The Court allowed the revision permitting the witness recall subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

This Criminal Revision is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; the petitioner is permitted to recall the defence witness for re-examination upon payment of Rs. 2000/- to the respondent by 22.12.2

R.Arivazhakan Vs P.Kandasamy — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 23.11.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1051 of 2015

¶6

R.Arivazhakan

¶7

vs.

¶8

P.Kandasamy ... Respondent

¶9

Criminal Revision filed u/s.397 & 401 Cr.P.C. against the order made in C.M.P.No.3158 of 2015 in C.M.P.Nos.2823 and 2824 of 2015 in S.T.C.No.261 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Tiruchengode dated 08.09.2015.

¶10

For Petitioners: Mr.V.Balamurugane

¶11

This revision has been filed against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Tiruchengode dated 08.09.2015 passed in C.M.P.No.3158 of 2015 in C.M.P.Nos.2823 and 2824 of 2015.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the records.

¶13

Learned counsel for respondent at the Court below has been served, but, however, there is no appearance for the respondent. Mere service of notice on the counsel for the respondent by itself would not be a sufficient service. An order for doing so was made only towards enabling the respondent to engage a counsel for appearance upon service being effected. In the present case, the issue is limited to this petitioner having been directed to pay costs in a sum of Rs.400/- on or before 07.09.2015 towards recall of a defence witness in a case for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Upon his failure to do, the petitioner has sought extension of time and the petition therefor has been dismissed giving rise to this revision.

¶14

Towards avoiding protraction of the proceedings, which would only be to the detriment of the complainant, this Court considers it appropriate to allow this revision, even though

¶15

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

¶16

service has not been completed upon the respondent, subject to this petitioner paying costs in a sum of Rs.2000/- to the second respondent/complainant.

¶17

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is allowed and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, ***(Fast Track Court) Tiruchengode dated 08/09/2015 passed in CMP No.3158/2015 in CMP Nos.2823 and 2824 of 2015 in STC No.261 of 2013 is setaside"** This petitioner shall be permitted to recall the defence witness for the purpose of re-examination, subject to his paying a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent on or before *22 .12.2015. The trial Court is directed to expeditiously dispose of the case pending in S.T.C.No.261 of 2013.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
Dated:25/11/2015
*Corrected as per
Order dated 16/12/2015
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
Dated:17/12/2015
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gpa
To To be Substituted for the
Orders already despatched
on 26/11/2015
The Judicial Magistrate
(Fast Track Court)
Tiruchengode
+ 1 cc to Mr.V. Balamurugan, Advocate Sr.67662
Crl.R.C.No.1051 of 2015
AR-II
EU 25.11.15
srg 17/12/2015

¶19

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

R.Arivazhakan v. P.Kandasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Arivazhakan v. P.Kandasamy

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

H.M. Abdul Jaleel Vs Ayyappan

K.v.Muthusamy Vs the State Rep. by Its

Mukesh Vs Koushalya

H.Farook Maricar Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvi.M.Manimekalai Vs Inspector of Police (L&O)

M.Yuvaraj Vs State Rep. by