The High Court dismissed a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside a trial court order rejecting applications by the accused to recall a witness. The witness had been examined over ten years after the incident without cross-examination by the accused.
Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:07.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.OP.No.9976 of 2016
and
Crl.M.P.No.5282 of 2016
Ravishankar ..Petitioner
Vs.
State rep by The Inspector of Police NIB CID, Chennai.
.. Respondent
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.1811 of 2015 in C.C.No.8 of 2005 dated 04.04.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balamurugan
For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias,
Addl.Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.1811 of 2015 in C.C.No.8 of 2005 dated 04.04.2016.
26.12.2003. Therefore, after more than ten years when P.W.11 was examined-in-chief, he must have probably fallen sick. The accused had not used that opportunity to cross examine P.W.11 in 2014 and now in the year 2016, the accused has filed applications in Crl.M.P.Nos.1811/2015 and 2218/2015 for the purpose of recalling P.W.11 and for appointment of a Commissioner for examining P.W.11, which came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 04.04.2016, challenging which the accused is before this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinoth Kumar v. State of Punjab [(2015) 1 MLJ (crl) 288] has held that a witness has to be cross examined on the day when he is examined-in-chief and no dilatory tactics should be adopted by the accused.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. gms Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police NIB CID, Chennai. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. KR/4/7/16 Crl.OP.No.9976 of 2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order dismissing the accused's applications to recall witness P.W.11.
Whether the accused adopted dilatory tactics by failing to cross-examine the witness when he was examined in 2014.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinoth Kumar v. State of PunjabExplained¶19
Vinoth Kumar v. State of Punjab [(2015) 1 MLJ (crl) 288]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravishankar
State
P.N. Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
