The High Court dismissed the CPL challenging the trial court's rejection of a request to recall a witness and mark delayed documents. The Court held the dismissal was correct but directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months.
Criminal Original Petition dismissed; Trial court directed to complete trial within three months.
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: 27.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.3137 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.2036 of 2019
M.Badrinarayanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Anandan
2.State by
Inspector of Police,
Traffic Investigation,
D-6, Anna Square Police Station,
Chennai – 600 005 ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.3672 of 2018 in C.C.No.1926 of 2012 on 04.01.2019
by the Hon'ble VI Metropolitan Magistrate,Egmore, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.A.Theagarajan
For RR1 : Mr.Chellaiah, Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.Mohammed Sadiq
For RR2 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to challenge the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3672 of 2018 in C.C.No.1926 of 2012 dated 04.01.2019 on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai thereby dismissing the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking reopening the prosecution case by permitting the prosecution to mark certain documents.
proceeding from North to South on Kamarajar Salai in his motorcycle. Therefore he sustained injuries and died. Thereafter, the offending vehicle was seized and filed charge sheet as against the first respondent accused in C.C.No.1926 of 2012. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses. The petitioner could not mark some documents which were misplaced from the case diary during examination of witnesses. Therefore, the second respondent filed a petition under Section 254(2) r/w 311 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.2362 of 2018 and the same was allowed by the trial court and four documents were marked. Again, the second respondent traced another five vehicle documents and filed another petition to reopen and to mark the said documents. The trial court without considering the said documents dismissed the petition on the ground that no plausible explanation or sufficient reason for the delay was given in filing the petition. Therefore he prayed to set aside the order.
two occasions to dispose of the case in expeditious manner, the trial court could not conclude the trial since the petitioner keep on filing petition and petition. The petitioner is none other than the brother of the deceased and he signed in the observation register as a witness along with one Uma Shankar, a clerk of Mr.Thiagarajan, Advocate for the intervenor and uncle of the deceased. Both of them are not witnesses to the alleged occurrence. Further he submitted that from the evidence of PW2 to PW4, there is no categorical evidence to prove the occurrence. Further he submitted that the earlier petition was allowed and the investigation officer was put in the witness box as the cover stated to be undelivered and returned was already opened cover. Now, the prosecution filed this petition to mark the already torn or opened covers. Therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed the petition and does not warrant any interference.
S.No Date Description of Documents Remarks
1 27.08.2011 Notice sent to Juliet Dola Carbon Copy
rose carbon copy
2 27.08.2011 Notice sent to Juliet Dola Postal Cover
Rose with acknowledgement with
(returned) acknowledgement
returned
unserved
3 27.08.2011 Postal Receipt Original
4 Acknowledgement Card Original
5 07.09.2011 Notice sent to Juliet Dola Postal Cover
Rose with
Acknowledgement
returned
unserved
7. The petitioner is the brother of the deceased. He
was already permitted to participate in the conduct of the
criminal proceedings and he is also permitted to file
appropriate application at the appropriate stage before the
trial court to examine and cross examine all the prosecution
witnesses in the manner known to law by this Court in
Crl.R.C.No.840 of 2013 by order dated 03.09.2013. Therefore,
the petitioner has locus standi to file this petition before this Court as against the order passed by the trial court thereby rejecting the petition filed by the prosecution to mark the above said documents.
Sub Assistant Registrar
lok
To
Crl.O.P.No.3137 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.2036 of 2019 A.SK(15/03/2019)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was correct in dismissing the prosecution petition to recall a witness and mark delayed documents.
Whether the petitioner, as the complainant and brother of the deceased, has locus standi to appeal against the trial court's dismissal.
Whether the trial court was directed to expedite the conclusion of the trial.
M. Badrinarayanan
Andanan
State represented by Inspector of Police
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
