Allowed

P.Sargunaraj v. the State, Represented by

Madras HC4 Oct 2024CRL OP/24537/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained a Criminal Original Petition seeking recall of a prosecution witness. The Court found no bar to the petition despite the delay and allowed it, directing the prosecution to make the witness available for cross-examination before the next session.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to recall P.W.13; prosecution directed to make witness available for cross-examination before the next posting date.

P.Sargunaraj Vs the State, Represented by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL.O.P.No.24537 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 04.10.2024

¶4

CORAM : MR. J USTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.24537 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.13824 of 2024

¶6

P.Sargunaraj ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State represented by The Inspector of Police V & AC Wing, Erode ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023, to set aside the order dated 04.09.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.6295 of 2024 in Spl.C.C.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur / Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act and allow the Crl.M.P.No.6295 of 2024 in Spl.C.C.No.16 of 2014.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sridhar For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This petition is filed seeking leave of the Court to recall P.W.13, the Trap Laying Officer (TLO). This recall was necessitated because the prosecution

¶13

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

¶14

1/4

¶15

CRL.O.P.No.24537 of 2024

¶16

recalled P.W.13 to mark certain M.O's which was omitted to mark when the TLO was in the witness box.

¶17

2.Dr.C.E.Pratap, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner has filed this petition after about a year and a half since marking of the M.Os. To ascertain when P.W.13 was recalled by the prosecution, this Court was informed that it was some two months back he was recalled and M.Os were marked. This Court finds no reason as to why this petition should not be allowed. After all, procedure fairness must be handled evenly. These are all the matters where this Court expects the learned trial Judge to be pragmatic rather than being pedantic.

¶18

3.In end, this petition is allowed. Before the defence examines its witness in

¶19

the next posting date, the prosecution is required to make available P.W.13 before them and defence will not take any adjournment in cross examining P.W.13 on the next posting day when this case is posted. If the witness is present, and the defence is not ready to cross examine P.W.13, then the opportunity herein accorded to the petitioner will stand forfeited. If a certified copy of the order is not issued before the next posting date before

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

CRL.O.P.No.24537 of 2024

¶23

the trial Court, then the trial Court is required to act on the web copy of this order pulled from the official website of High Court of Madras. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

04.10.2024

¶25

kas

¶26

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation

¶27

To 1. The Inspector of Police V & AC Wing Erode

¶28

2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Tiruppur Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act

¶29

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

CRL.O.P.No.24537 of 2024

¶31

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

¶32

kas

¶33

CRL.O.P.No.24537 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.13824 of 2024

¶34

04.10.2024

¶35

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.Sargunaraj v. the State, Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sargunaraj v. the State, Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sundaramoorthi, M/a 53 Yrs,(Died) Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Arulmani Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by

Arunadevi Vs State Rep.by

H.Navya Vs the State Rep by Its

J.Chithambaram Vs State Rep.by

Umaiyakunjaram Vs the State Rep by