Allowed

S.Navaneethan v. State through Inspector of

Madras HC14 Jun 2017CRL OP(MD)/4232/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, directed the Special Judge under the TNPID Act to complete the trial of C.C. No. 98 of 2008 within six months. The court empowered the trial judge to remand accused employing dilatory tactics and specified witness cross-examination procedures.

What did the court decide?

The Special Judge directed to complete trial in C.C.No.98 of 2008 within six months from receipt of order.

S.Navaneethan Vs State through Inspector of — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.06.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4232 of 2017

¶6

S.Navaneethan : Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State through Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Tuticorin (Crime No.1 of 2004) : Respondent

¶9

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the learned Special Judge, TNPID Court, Maduri to dispose of the above case in C.C.No.98/2008 on the file of the Special Judge, TNPID Court, Madurai, within two weeks as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶10

For Petitioner : K.A.Raamakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

On the directions of this Court, the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act Cases, Madurai, has sent a detailed report, dated 13.06.2017, wherein it is stated as follows:“ I submit, I took charge as TNPID Judge on 2.5.2017. In obedience of Hon'ble High Court's Order, very short adjournment were given by me in this case. I submit NBW was pending against the accused A3, A4 and A5 on 09.05.2017, they were surrendered, and NBW issued against them was recalled. The case was posted day by day basis on various days like 08.05.17, 11.5.17, 12.05.17, 13.05.17, 15.05.17, 16.05.17, 17.05.17, 22.05.17, 25.05.17, 29.05.17, 31.05.17, 06.06.17, 07.06.17, 09.06.17, 12.06.17 and today 13.06.2017. On 25.05.17, three witnesses were present, the accused had settled the amount to the depositors L.W.60, L.W.64 and L.W.259. On 31.05.17, the accused had settled the amount to L.W.220. On 12.06.17, L.W.86, 87, 88, 89, 90 were present and the amount was settled by the accused to the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ depositors. On 7.6.2017 this Court made specific endorsement in the Diary notes paper that all the

¶13

¶14

accused to be present on 09.06.17, for complying the order of Hon'ble High Court, but A5 alone was present and others were absent on that day.

¶15

I further submit that so far 90 witnesses

¶16

were examined and 280 witnesses are yet to be examined, the case has been posted day to day basis even then this Court could not complete the case in time. Under this circumstances if I am not causing any inconvenience to Hon'ble High Court I pray that your Honour may kindly extend the time for another six month to dispose the case and oblige.

¶17

Accepting the report, this Court directs the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act Cases, Madurai, to expeditiously complete the trial in C.C.No.98 of 2008, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any of the accused adopted dilatory tactics, it is open to the learned Trial Judge to remand him in custody in view of the law laid down in State of U.P. v. Shambu Nath Singh [2001(4) SCC 667] . If any accused absconds, a separate FIR can be registered against him under Section 299(A) Cr.P.C. The accused shall cross-examine the witnesses on the day when they are examined in Chief as directed by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (1) Scale 542 .

¶18

With the above direction, this criminal original petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar (Records) /True copy/

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

1.The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Tuticorin.

¶22

2.The Special Judge, TNPID Court, Madurai.

¶23

+1 CC to M/s.K.A.RAMAAKRISHNAN, Advocate, SR No. 60642. JIKR PSM/KP/SAR1/27.06.2017/2P/4C

¶24

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

¶25

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4232 of 2017 14.06.2017

S.Navaneethan v. State through Inspector of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Navaneethan v. State through Inspector of

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.Solairaj Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Balasubramanian Vs Auditya Laxmy

Viswanathan Vs Auditya Laxmy

P.S.a.Akkayasamy Vs a.Habeeb Mohammed

H.T.Sathiya Dhas, Vs the Superintendent of Police

C.Jeya Chandran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police