Remanded

T.Ravi v. G.Sidharthan

Madras HC7 Jun 2016CRL OP/9928/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the trial court in a criminal case before a Fast Track Court to complete the trial within six months. It also ordered the accused to furnish a bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. and allowed an opportunity for cross-examination of a prosecution witness.

What did the court decide?

Direction to complete the trial within six months; accused to furnish a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties; opportunity for cross-examination of P.W.1.

T.Ravi Vs G.Sidharthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.06.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP No.9928 of 2016

¶6

T.Ravi ..Petitioner

¶7

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the learned Fast Track Court, III Magistrate, Saidapet to complete the trial in the above C.C.No.6568 of 2014 and pronounce the judgment within a reasonable time.

¶8

This petition has been filed to direct the learned Fast Track Court, III Magistrate, Saidapet to complete the trial in the above C.C.No.6568 of 2014 and pronounce the judgment within a reasonable time.

¶9

It is seen that the petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.6568/2014 pending before the Fast Track Court-III Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The adjudication orders passed in the said matter are as under:

¶10

"ADJUDICATION ORDER

¶11

14.12.2015 : M.M. on E.L. Complainant present. Accused present. Call on 21.01.2016. Sd/FTC-III Metropolitan Magistrate

¶12

21.01.2016 : Complainant present. Accused present. 313 questioned. Accused not guilty. For D.W's finally call on 15.03.2016.

¶13

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

¶14

Sd/-

¶15

FTC-III Metropolitan Magistrate

¶16

15.03.2016 : Both present. For D.W's finally call on 06.06.2016. Call on suitable order passed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

FTC-III Metropolitan Magistrate"

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is getting adjourned for production of defence witness, though P.W.1 has not yet been cross examined. This Court is aware of the fact that in cases of this nature the accused would try to take all possible steps for delaying the trial and for gaining time.

¶20

Under such circumstances, this Court directs the trial Court to complete the trial in C.C.No.6568/2014 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, opportunity may be given to the accused to cross examine P.W.1 on a date fixed by the trial Court. The trial Court shall also ensure that the accused furnishes a bond u/s 88 Cr.P.C. for a sum of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand only] with two sureties.

¶21

With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

¶22

-s/d-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CSII)

¶24

True Copy

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

gms

¶27

¶28

1.Fast Track Court, III Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai

¶29

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

¶30

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶31

+1 cc to Mr.M.Abdul Razack Advocate sr.30367

¶32

Crl.OP No.9928 of 2016

¶33

aa15/06/2016

¶34

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

T.Ravi v. G.Sidharthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ravi v. G.Sidharthan

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

Palaniammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu through

M.Ganesan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Akilesh Kumar Jiswal Vs the Commissioner of Police

Ravishankar Vs the Inspector of Police

Godgil Vs the Inspector of Police

Mr.Suresh @ Marisamy Vs M/S.Jyothik Engi. Enterprises