Allowed

A.Saminathan v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Madras HC3 Sept 2021CRL OP(MD)/5875/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a CRP under Section 482 CrPC to compell the trial court to permit the petitioner accused to recall witnesses regarding altered charges. The judgment held that when charges are altered before judgment, the accused must be given an opportunity to recall and cross-examine witnesses on the new charges without prejudice to early disposal.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to recall witnesses and cross-examine them regarding the altered charges.

A.Saminathan Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.[MD] No.5875 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ORDER RESERVED : 26.04.2021 ORDER PRONOUNCED : 03.09.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Crl.O.P.[MD] No.5875 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3388 of 2021

¶5

A.Saminathan : Petitioner/Accused No 1

¶6

vs.

¶7

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶8

2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. : Respondents/Complainants

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 19.03.2021 in C.C.No.20 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge (V & AC) Court, Sivagangai and quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Senior Counsel for M/S.Veera Associates For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed questioning the conduct of the presiding Judge. Before pronouncing the judgment, on appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Judge/Special Judge, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Court, Sivagangai, had altered the charges framed against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.20 of 2014.

¶13

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the charges had been altered, the accused should be extended the benefit of recalling the witnesses so as to cross-examine the witnesses regarding the newly added or altered charges. Therefore, the learned counsel for the accused seeks stay of the proceedings and to set aside the order, dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned trial Judge, altering the charges in C.C.No.20 of 2014, by way of filing the present Criminal Original Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

1/3

¶15

Crl.O.P.[MD] No.5875 of 2021

¶16

Already charges were framed as against A1 to A3 as under Section 120 (B) r/w. 467, 468, 471, 420, 409, 406 of IPC and r/w. Sections 13 (2) r/w. Sections 13 (1) (c ) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As against A1 and A2 under Section 467, 468, 471 r/w. 467 and 468 of IPC and 420 of IPC and as against A3 as under Section 420 r/w. 109 of IPC. As against A1 under Section 406 of IPC and 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act and as against A2 under Section 409 of IPC and under Section 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act. As against A2 under Section 409 of IPC and under Section 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and as against A3 as under Section 109 of IPC r/w. 409 of IPC and 406 of IPC and r/w. 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) ( c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As against A1 to A3 under Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶17

The learned trial Judge, by his order dated 19.03.2021, had altered the charges against A1 under Sections 120 (B) r/w. 420, 468, 471, 420, 409 of IPC and under Section 13 (2) r/w. Section 13 (1) (c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. As Against A2 under Sections 120 (B) r/w. 420, 468 r/w. 120(B), 471 r/w. 120 (B), 420, 409 r/w. 120 (B) and Sections 13 (2) r/w. Sections 13 (1) ( c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. As Against A-3 as under Sections 120 (B) r/w. 420, 468 r/w. 120 (B), 471 r/w. 120 (B), 420 r/w.120 (B), 409 r/w. Section 120 (B) and Section 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) ( c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order on the ground that he has not offered an opportunity of hearing. The proceedings under 313 (1) of Cr.P.C., had already been completed.

¶18

5.The learned trial Judge/Special Judge, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Court, Sivagangai, has the power to alter the charges before pronouncing the judgment. At the same time, the learned Judge, while exercising his / her discretion to alter the charges based on the materials available before him / her. The resultant action of the learned Judge shall not prejudice the accused.

¶19

6.On perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, dated 19.03.2021, it is found from the materials that the learned trial Judge arrived at the conclusion that A1 and A3 are the Government servants. They shall be charged for the offences punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Sections (1) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶20

7.If the learned trial Judge intends to alter the charges, then chances must be provided to the accused for recalling and reexamining each of the witnesses, as per law. For recalling the witnesses, the accused shall not seek adjournments repeatedly. The accused is duty bound to the Court for early disposal of the cases.

¶21

8.In view of the above, the learned trial Judge/Special Judge, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

2/3

¶23

Crl.O.P.[MD] No.5875 of 2021

¶24

Vigilance and Änti Corruption Court, Sivagangai, is directed to proceed with the trial as if newly added charges have to be proved and the witnesses have to be recalled regarding the altered charges and to be cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused regarding the altered charges. The point for consideration is answered accordingly.

¶25

9.The learned trial Judge/Special Judge, Vigilance and Änti Corruption Court, Sivagangai, is directed to permit the petitioner to recall the witnesses on the altered charges. If there are materials to meet the altered charges and cross-examine the witnesses, when the witnesses are recalled by the prosecution.

¶26

10.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

¶32

¶33

1.The Special Judge,(V & AC) Court, Sivagangai.

¶34

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Sivagangai,

¶35

Sivagangai District.

¶36

3.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶37

The Additional Public prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.VEERA ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-28247[F] dated 06/09/2021 )

¶39

Crl.O.P.[MD] No.5875 of 2021 03.09.2021

¶40

NSN(CO)

¶41

KB(28.09.2021) 3P 6C

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

A.Saminathan v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Saminathan v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs K.Prabhu

M/S.National Insurance Vs G.Suchitra Sudhakar

M/S. Bajaj Allianz General Vs Kavitha

P.Raghu Ganesh Vs The Additional Superintendent of Police

P.Raghu Ganesh Vs The Additional Superintendent of Police

Murugan.K.S Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police