Partly allowed

Ubaiadhulla v. State Represented by

Madras HC25 Nov 2024CRL OP/28813/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused challenged the trial court's order imposing Rs.26,000/- as cost for recalling P.Ws.1 to 8 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in a CBI case. The High Court reduced the cost to Rs.20,000/-, directed payment of Rs.2,500/- per witness, and warned cross-examination rights would be forfeited if not exercised.

What did the court decide?

Cost reduced from Rs.26,000/- to Rs.20,000/-; trial court directed to pay each witness Rs.2,500/- on appearance.

Ubaiadhulla Vs State Represented by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL.O.P.No.28813 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 25.11.2024

¶4

CORAM : MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.28813 of 2024

¶6

Ubaiadhulla ... Petitioner/Accused

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI/EOB, Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, to set aside the order dated 23.10.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.63715 of 2024 in C.C.No.1018 of 2020 in respect of the condition of payment of Batta amount of Rs.26,000/- in the account of the Court on or before 18.11.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : Mr.B.Mohan Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)

¶11

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

ORDER

¶13

CRL.O.P.No.28813 of 2024

¶14

The present petition has been filed to set aside the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore made in Crl.M.P.No.63715 of 2024, filed by the accused for recalling P.W.1 to P.W.8.

¶15

P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined between 2020 and 2024. This Court understands that the accused has not even filed a petition to defer cross examination of the witnesses. It is in this circumstances, when the petitioner took out Crl.M.P.No.63715 of 2024 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to recall these witnesses, the Trial Court allowed the same but slapped a cost of Rs.26,000/-. This Revision is now directed against the costs / quashing of the impugned order.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶17

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CRL.O.P.No.28813 of 2024

¶19

This Court finds that the cost imposed on the petitioner can be modified, but not to the extent of encouraging the petitioner engaging in similar tactics in future. Therefore, this Court reduces the cost imposed by the Trial Court from Rs.26,000/- to Rs.20,000/-, and the money shall be deposited by the petitioner on or before 04.12.2024, before he applies for witness summons.

¶20

The Trial Court is also further directed that each of the witness is paid Rs.2,500/- on the date they appear. It is further underscored that if the petitioner does not cross examine any witnesses who appears, then, subject to any force majeure or vis majeure event, the petitioner shall cross examine the witness on the same date, and if he fails, his opportunity to cross examine the witnesses shall stand forfeited.

¶21

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petitions stands partly allowed.

¶22

25.11.2024

¶23

Anu

¶24

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation Note:Issue order copy on 25.11.2024

¶25

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

¶26

CRL.O.P.No.28813 of 2024

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

Anu

1.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore

¶31

2.The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI/EOB, Chennai.

¶32

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104

¶33

CRL.O.P.No.28813 of 2024

¶34

25.11.2024

¶35

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

Ubaiadhulla v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ubaiadhulla v. State Represented by

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

R.Sasikala, F/54 Vs State by

R.Karthick Vs the State Secretary

S.M.Shafi, Vs B.Sivakumar

K.Ramalinga Jothi Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Baskar Naidu, M/62 Years Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Sivagami Vs State Represented by