Dismissed

Subair Banu, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Jul 2023CRL RC(MD)/348/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to eschew incomplete witness evidence and continue cross-examination citing a quarrel during trial. Court held no statutory provision exists to eschew evidence and it is for the Presiding Officer to assess evidentiary value later. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to eschew evidence and continue cross-examination dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Subair Banu, Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.RC(MD) No.348 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.07.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

Crl.RC(MD) No.348 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.11203 of 2019

Subair Banu

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Inspector of Police Kottar Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District ..Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: This Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w.401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District dated 02.04.2019 made in Crl.M.P.No.2974 of 2019 in C.C. No.258 of 2014 and consequently order the certain portion of evidence of P.W. 1 to be eschewed forthwith and further to continue the cross examination of P.W.1 forthwith

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.RC(MD) No.348 of 2019

¶19

District dated 02.04.2019 made in Crl.M.P.No.2974 of 2019 in C.C. No. 258 of 2014 and consequently order the certain portion of evidence of P.W. 1 to be eschewed forthwith and further to continue the cross examination of P.W.1 forthwith.

¶20

According to the petitioner the evidence of P.W.1 was stopped due to quarrel between the counsel and the Presiding Officer and it was incomplete,therefore the said evidence of the P.W.1 has to be eschewed.

¶21

There is no provision under Indian Evidence Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure to eschew the evidence and since already evidence of P.W. 1 was partly recorded and it has to be decided by the Presiding Officer at the time of passing judgment, whether it has any evidentiarcy value or not according to the Evidence Act. Now this Court cannot pass any orders with regard to the prayer of the petitioner.

¶22

Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

27.07.2023

¶24

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No aav

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.RC(MD) No.348 of 2019

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.RC(MD) No.348 of 2019

¶30

¶31

The Inspector of Police Kottar Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District

¶32

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶33

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

¶34

4/5

¶35

Crl.RC(MD) No.348 of 2019

¶36

P.DHANABAL, J.

¶37

aav

¶38

Crl.RC(MD) No.348 of 2019

¶39

27.07.2023

¶40

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

¶41

5/5

Subair Banu, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subair Banu, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gokul Ajith Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Senthil Kumar, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Jaiganesh Vs Inspector of Police

Fr.Maria Arputham Vs T.Mahesh

Jeromdhas Vs The Inspector of Police

K.Vijayakumar Vs The Inspector of Police