Dismissed

V.Venkatesan, Aged 57 Years v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Madras HC27 Mar 2018CRL OP/9658/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras examined a criminal original petition challenging an order dismissing an application to summon the petitioner's wife as a defense witness under Cr.P.C. Sections 243(2) and 311. Finding no infirmity in the Trial Court's reasoning, the High Court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the impugned order of the Trial Court was dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed.

V.Venkatesan, Aged 57 Years Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by — Corruption | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 27.03.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.9658 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.4981 of 2018

¶6

V.Venkatesan ...Petitioner/Accused

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Salem ...Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Prayer: Criminal original petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records relating to the order dated 19.02.2018 made in Crl.M.P.No.71 of 2018 in Spl.C.C.No.68 of 2014 on the Court of Special Judge (Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act), Salem and to set aside the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Devaraj For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabakar

¶11

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This petition is to direct against the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed under Sections 243(2) and 311 of Cr.P.C. to issue summons to the wife of the petitioner to examine as defense witness.

¶14

2 The perusal of impugned order, the petitioner indicates that the present application is to summon a witness for defense has been taken out after enough opportunity given to the accused to provide such of defense witness, only after the submission of the learned counsel for the accused that there is no defense witness, the Trial Court has proceeded further by fixing 22.12.2017 as a date for argument. Thereafter, the accused has filed this petition.

¶15

3 Hence, the Trial Court after considering the provision of law viz., Section 247 Cr.P.C and Section 22 of Prevention of Corruption Act, had dismissed the petition.

¶16

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

¶17

4 This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶18

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1 The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Salem
2 The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.M.Devaraj, Advocate Sr.No.23428
SKS(CO)
sm:20.4.2018
Crl.O.P.No.9658 of 2018

¶21

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

V.Venkatesan, Aged 57 Years v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Venkatesan, Aged 57 Years v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

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

Dr.Mayilvahanan, Aged 60 Years Vs State Rep. by

K.N.Palanisamy Vs Subbayal

K.Srinivasan, Vs State Rep. by Its

Devarajan, Aged 48 Years Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

T.L.Vedachalam Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Ramaswamy Vs M.Saravanan