Disposed

S.Pandiyan v. the State Represented by Its

Madras HC28 Feb 2020CRL OP/4705/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Painter challenged the dismissal of a request to recall a prosecution witness for cross-examination. The High Court directed the police to produce witness PW.9 on March 12, 2020, and the petitioner to pay witness protection fees, disposing of the criminal original petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to produce witness PW.9 on March 12, 2020; petitioner to pay Rs. 2,500 for witness protection.

S.Pandiyan Vs the State Represented by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.02.2020

¶2

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶3

Crl.O.P.No. 4705 of 2020

¶4

and Crl.MP.NO.2683 of 2020

¶5

S.Pandiyan

¶6

... Petitioner/ Accused

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The State Represented by its Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruppur.

¶9

... Respondent/ Complainant

¶10

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order passed in CMP.No.1288 of 2019 in SPL.CC.No.30/2014 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Geetha Rani

¶12

For Respondent :.Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, APP

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner is an accused in Spl.C.C.No. 30 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988. While the case was under trial, the petitioner prefered a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall the witness PW.9.- Tr.Selvaraj, Inspector of police for cross examination and the said application was dismissed by the learned Chef Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur on 06.02.2020 in Cr.MP.NO.1288/2019 in Spl.C.C.No.30/2014. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.

¶15

2.Learned counsel apperaing for petitioner submitted that only after the cross examination of PW.8, the necessity for cross examining PW9, Mr.Selvaraj, Inspector of Police arose and since he was not cross examined, the petitioner prreferred a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C on 26.12.2019 to racall PW9 for cross examination; the same was dismissed on 06.02.2020. He further submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur ought to have realized the fact that as regards PW9. It is admitted that the PW9 was not at all cross and only after cross examining PW.8, the necessity for cross examining of PW.9 arose and it is just as necessary that the basic right of cross examination ought to be provided to the defense. Hence, he prays this Court to fix a date for cross examination of PW.9 and on which dtae the petitioner undertakes to cross examine the witness of PW.9.

¶16

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

¶17

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for State submitted that the next hearing date is fixed on 12/03/2020 and on the same day PW.9 will be produced and if this Court may issue a direction to the respondent police to produce PW.9. It is further submitted that cost be imposed for the purpose of witness protection. He further submitted that already an opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine PWs.7 and 8, and it was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur on 09.07.2019, aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred a Crl.OP.No.18989 of 2019 before this court and the same was allowed on 22.07.2019 and the witnesses of PW.7 and PW.8 were recalled and examined and thereafter, based on their evidences, the petitioner seeks to cross examine PW. 9.

¶18

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned Additonla Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent, who has agreed to porduce the witness of PW.9 for cross examination on 12/3/2020, this Court issues a direction to the prosecution /respondent police to produce the witness. PW.9, on 12/3/2020, before the trial Court and on the said date, the petitioner shall cross examine, PW.9 without asking any further adjournments. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- for the protection of witness before the trial Court. 5.This Criminal Original Petiton is disposed of with the aforesid direction. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jrs To 1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur. 2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruppur. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to M/s.V.Geetha , Advocate SR.No. 18137

¶19

Crl.O.P.No. 4705 of 2020 and Crl.MP.NO.2683 of 2020

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A.SK(10/03/2020)

S.Pandiyan v. the State Represented by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Pandiyan v. the State Represented by Its

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

J.Joel Johnson Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

R.Kumar, S/O.Rangasamy Naidu Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohamed Anees Vs State Rep by

Seetha @ Seethalakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Purushothaman Vs the State Rep.by

Nandhini Vs The Deputy Superintendent of police