Dismissed

K.P.Kumaran, v. P.Krishnan

Madras HC28 Sept 2022CRL RC/142/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court set aside the order dismissing a petition for additional evidence. The Court found the petition was filed to delay proceedings without disclosing documents, noting the pending criminal appeal. The Court dismissed the revision but directed the Trial Court to dispose of the appeal within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed; Trial Court directed to dispose pending appeal within twelve weeks.

K.P.Kumaran, Vs P.Krishnan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.142 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.09.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANL

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.142 of 2018

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.No.1047 of 2018

¶9

K.P.Kumaran 2. K.Ananda Jothi 3. K.Suganya

.... Petitioners

P.Krishnan

.... Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.100 of 2017 in C.A.No.9 of 2017 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Erode and set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.100 of 2017 dated 08.09.2017 and thereby permit the petitioner to adduce additional evidence.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order dated

¶18

08.09.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.100 of 2017 in C.A.No.9 of 2017 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Erode, thereby

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

Crl.R.C.No.142 of 2018

¶22

dismissed the petition filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C.

¶23

The petitioners are accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent

¶24

herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶25

Before the Trial Court, the respondent examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the petitioners, they examined D.Ws.1 & 2 and marked Ex.D1.

¶26

On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The Trial Court awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- payable by the petitioners herein to the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.9 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Erode. Pending appeal, the petitioners filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.100 of 2017 under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., seeking permission to mark certain important documents through D.W.2, which were not marked before the Trial Court.

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 5

¶28

Crl.R.C.No.142 of 2018

¶29

to A3.

¶30

A perusal of the records reveals that the petitioners are arrayed as A1

¶31

to A3. Before the Trial Court, the respondent was examined P.W.1 and the petitioners were examined D.Ws.1 & 2. Pending appeal, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., to permit the petitioners to mark some more important documents through D.W.2, which were not marked before the Trial Court. The petitioners did not whisper as to what are all the documents he did not mark through D.W.2. Before the Trial Court, they fully examined D.W.2 and they marked only reply notice and no other document was marked before the Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., which is nothing but only to drag on the proceedings. However, they also examined D.W.1 before the Trial Court. There is no circumstances warranting to grant permission for the petitioners to re-examine D.W.2 that too for marking important documents which were not at all disclosed by the petitioners either before the Trial Court or before this Court. That apart, the appeal is pending before the Court from the year 2017.

¶32

In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 08.09.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.100 of 2017 in C.A.No.9 of 2017 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Erode.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 5

¶34

Crl.R.C.No.142 of 2018

¶35

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

28.09.2022

¶37

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order Lpp

¶38

¶39

The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 5

¶41

Crl.R.C.No.142 of 2018

¶42

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

¶43

Lpp

¶44

Crl.R.C.No.142 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.1047 of 2018

¶45

28.09.2022

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 5

K.P.Kumaran, v. P.Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Kumaran, v. P.Krishnan

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

Bharathi, Aged 42 Years, Vs the State Rep. by Its

S.Chitra, Aged 46 Years, Vs T.Hariharan, Aged 33 Years

A.S.Vijaya, Aged 48 Years, Vs S.Loganathan

N.Manimegalai, Aged 38 Years Vs Madhan

A.Loganathan, M/a 35 Yrs, Vs K.Sellamuthu, M/a 59 Yrs

S.Jayakumar, Aged 44 Years, Vs M.Palanisamy