Dismissed

A.Wilson v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Mar 2017CRL OP(MD)/2657/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition challenging the Trial Court's rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall prosecution witnesses who had turned hostile. The Court found no serious infirmity as the petitioners failed to provide reasons for the delay or relevance of further cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

A.Wilson Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.03.2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶3

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.2657 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2031 of 2017

¶4

1.A.Wilson 2.Lilly Bai

¶5

: Petitioners

¶6

-Vs-

¶7

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pechiparai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶8

: Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to allow the application and set aside the order passed in C.M.P.No.7272 of 2016, in C.C.No.86 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, dated 22.11.2016.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioners are facing prosecution in C.C.No.86 of 2007 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Even, according to the case of the petitioners, the important witnesses to the prosecution, viz., P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 turned hostile to the prosecution case and they supported the case of the accused. The prosecution examined P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.8 on 24.10.2013 and 27.07.2014 and the prosecution side was closed on 26.11.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to recall P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.8, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 22.11.2016, challenging which, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶14

Heard Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents. Mr.Gnanadas, Special SubInspector of Police, Pechiparai Police Station, is present in Court today.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

Admittedly, the important witnesses did not support the prosecution case. P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.8 were examined in the year 2014 and after the prosecution side was closed, the present application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed sometimes in October, 2016. Even, in the petition filed by the petitioners, they have not given any reason as to why the three witnesses were not cross-examined and how their crossexamination would be relevant for the just decision of the case. Therefore, this Court does not find any serious infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶18

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

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶21

/True copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram.

¶25

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police,

¶26

State of Tamil Nadu, Pechiparai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶27

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶28

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶29

+1 CC to Mr.C.K.M.APPAJI, Advocate, SR No. 16781 SML

¶30

PSM/KP/SAR2/03.04.2017/2P/5C

¶31

Order made in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.2657 of 2017 Dated: 21.03.2017

¶32

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

A.Wilson v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Wilson v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

Manavalan Angelo Jude Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Jeyapandi, Vs State Rep.through

Thilaga, Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Vasuki, Vs M.Krishnan

Nallasamy Vs Jegadheesan

C.Thangam, W/O.Chinnasamy Vs the Principal Secretary to