Accused in a Section 138 NI Act complaint sought recall of the Village Administrative Officer and examination of Bank Manager via applications under Sections 311 and 254(2) Cr.P.C after completion of trial. The High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal, noting belated filing and prior failure to avail opportunities, and dismissed both petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.OP.Nos.13677 and 13680 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :12.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.OP.Nos.13677 and 13680 of 2024 and Crl.MP.No.8326 of 2024
S.Muruganadham ... Petitioner (in both Crl.OPs)
Vs.
S.Shanmugavadivu ... Respondent (in both Crl.OPs)
Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 08.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet in C.M.P.No.574 of 2024 in S.T.C.No.25 of 2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Mouli (in both Crl.OPs)
COMMON O R D E R
These two Criminal Original petitions filed to set aside the order passed by the trial Court on the applications filed by the petitioner herein under Section 254 (2) Cr.P.C and Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
1/4
Crl.OP.Nos.13677 and 13680 of 2024
2. The petitioner herein is the accused in the complaint registered
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. These two petitions were filed after completion of trial and listed for arguments. The trial Court on considering the merits of the application has recorded that the examination of witnesses were over by 05.10.2023 and thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to examine Village Administrative Officer as a defense witness, but when the petition came up for hearing, there was no representation and hence, it was dismissed. Again, the accused has filed an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C to examine witnesses and the same was also allowed and opportunity was given.
3. In such circumstances, the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to re-call Village Administrative Officer is not maintainable. Likewise, the application filed under Section 254(2) also to examine Bank Manager also does not warrant any positive consideration, since the petitions were filed belatedly at the fag end of the trial which is pending for more than five years.
2/4
Crl.OP.Nos.13677 and 13680 of 2024
4. This Court testing the impugned order in the light of grounds
raised by the petitioner herein finds that the reasons stated to file these two applications belatedly and after the failure to exercise the rights given
by the Court is acceptable and no reasons to interfere the same. Hence, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.06.2024
Vv
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet
3/4
Crl.OP.Nos.13677 and 13680 of 2024
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
Vv
Crl.OP.Nos.13677 and 13680 of 2024
12.06.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the accused's belated applications under Sections 311 and 254(2) Cr.P.C to recall witnesses at the fag end of a five-year trial could be entertained.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Muruganadham
S.Shanmugavadivu
G.Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
