This judgment dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to recall witnesses for cross-examination. The Court held that no merit existed to reopen the case after 13 years of pendency once final arguments were advanced and the judgment was imminent.
The petition to recall witnesses (P.W.2, P.W.7, P.W.8) and reopen the case was dismissed.
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.O.P.No.26907 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 06.11.2024
CORAM : MR. J USTICE N.SESHASAYEE
CRL.O.P.No.26907 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.14936 of 2024
K.Semakumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by Inspector of Police V & AC Wing, Tiruppur
... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, to set aside the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5979 of 2024, dated 21.09.2024 in Spl.C.C.No.29 of 2014 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Nagarajan
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This petition is filed to reopen and recall P.W.2, P.W.7 and P.W.8 in Special C.C.No.29 of 2014, on the file of the learned Special Court Cum Chief
1/4
CRL.O.P.No.26907 of 2024
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur. This Court understands that final arguments
have been advanced and the judgment is scheduled to be delivered tomorrow
(07.11.2024).
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel on record
for the petitioner before the trial Court failed to ask few questions these witnesses, and hence he seeks recall of the above witnesses.
3.The learned Prosecutor has filed his counter and submits that the chief examination of these witnesses have taken place sometime in 2012 and they were cross examined years later. He added that the F.I.R. was registered in 2010 and the Court itself took cognizance based on the final report of the investigating agency in 2011.
4.This case is pending obviously for the last 13 years, and this Court is not able to appreciate the strategy of the petitioner to recall witnesses for cross examination when the case is posted for delivering judgment. This Court does not find any merit in this petition. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
If, however, due to the failure of the petitioner to raise the questions which
2/4
CRL.O.P.No.26907 of 2024
he wanted to confront these witnesses has led to any adverse verdict against
him then, he is free to approach the Appellate Court with similar prayer.
5.In the end, this petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.11.2024
kas Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation
To 1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Tiruppur 2.The Inspector of Police V & AC Wing Tiruppur 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
kas
CRL.O.P.No.26907 of 2024
CRL.O.P.No.26907 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.14936 of 2024
06.11.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should recall witnesses for cross-examination when the case is pending for 13 years and final arguments have been advanced.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to recall witnesses to frame issues after the failure to ask questions in evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Semakumar
State represented by Inspector of Police V & AC Wing, Tiruppur
N.Seshasayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
