Allowed

R.Parasuraman v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Dec 2020CRL OP(MD)/14480/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petitioner's petition under Section 482 CrPC, setting aside an order that permitted the prosecution to treat a sanctioning authority, originally examined as a court witness, as a prosecution witness. Following State v. Bhanuprasad, the judgment holds that a court witness cannot be treated as a prosecution witness.

What did the court decide?

The order allowing the respondent to treat the court witness as a prosecution witness was set aside.

R.Parasuraman Vs The Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14480 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.12.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.14480 of 2020

¶7

R.Parasuraman

¶8

... Petitioner/Accused

¶9

¶10

State through the Inspector of Police, CBI, DCB, Chennai, RC/MA1/A0031.

¶11

... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 21.08.2020 allowing the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., by the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.159/2020 in C.C.No.14/2018 after calling for the records and examining the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Devasena For Respondent : M/s.L.Victoria Gowri Assistant Solicitor General

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent.

¶16

2.The petitioner is facing prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent is the prosecuting agency. It appears that the respondent had not shown the sanctioning authority as a list witness. He also did not take expeditious steps for examining the sanctioning authority as a prosecution witness. Therefore, the learned trial Judge suo motu examined the sanctioning authority as a court witness. Thereafter, the respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.159 of 2020 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for treating the court summoned witness as a prosecution witness and for treating the exhibits marked through him as prosecution exhibits namely Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The said prayer was allowed by the Court below and it was ordered that the sanctioning authority who was examined as C.W.1 will be included in the list of witness as L.W.21 and the documents marked through him will be treated as prosecution exhibits. Questioning the same, the accused filed this original petition.

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws my https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ attention to the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in AIR

¶18

1/2

¶19

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14480 of 2020

¶20

1967 Bom 378 (State Vs. Bhanuprasad Shyamlal Joshi) in which, it has been held that the Court witness would be neither a witness for the prosecution nor for the defence. Respectfully following the said decision, I hold that the order impugned cannot be sustained. Neither provision of law nor any case law has been cited to show that the Court witness can be treated as a prosecution witness. Therefore, the order impugned in this petition is set aside. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶21

4.However, I am constrained to observe that the prosecution need not have taken out such a petition at all. The sanctioning authority was examined as a court witness. He had been subjected to cross examination also. The sanction order had also been brought on record. Thus, whatever the prosecution would have done by examining the said witness had already been brought on record. Therefore, failure to examine the said sanctioning authority as a prosecution witness will not cause any prejudice to the prosecution case. In my view, the very filing of the petition is unnecessary. In any event, the Court below erred in accepting the request made by the prosecuting agency.

¶22

5.With these observations, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶23

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

rmi

¶27

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶28

¶29

1.The Inspector of Police, CBI, DCB, Chennai.

¶30

2.The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶31

Crl.O.P(MD)No.14480 of 2020 mj(CO) TR(11.01.2021) 2P 3C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

R.Parasuraman v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Parasuraman v. The Inspector of Police

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

B.Rajendiran Vs The Inspector of Police

Karuppuchamy Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Krishnakumar Vs N.K.Natarayan

P. Peter Krishnan Vs Kannan

Thasamma Vs The Inspector of Police

Samivel Vs the Inspector of Police