Dismissed

S.Arul v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Dec 2024CRL OP/8750/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that filing a formal petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution to elicit further answers during incomplete examination of a witness is unnecessary and creates avoidable paperwork. The prosecution can simply seek oral leave of the Court during the examination.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

S.Arul Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL.O.P.No.8750 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.6297 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 06.12.2024

¶4

CORAM : MR. J USTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.8750 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.6297 of 2024

S.Arul

... Petitioner

Vs.

State represented by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption City Special Unit-III Alandur, Chennai - 16 ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.679 of 2024 in Special Case No.1 of 2020 on the file of Special Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and set aside the order dated 11.03.2024.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayakumar

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The present petition is preferred by the sole accused in Special Case No.1 of

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

CRL.O.P.No.8750 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.6297 of 2024

¶18

2020, now pending trial before the learned Special Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu. The petitioner is facing trial for charges U/s.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018.

¶19

2.P.W.1, the officer who accorded sanction U/s.19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, was examined in chief examination fully. The matter is posted for cross examination. However, the prosecution wanted to ask couple of more questions to clarify certain aspects which the witness has already spoken in the chief examination earlier. For this purpose it took out a petition in Crl.M.P.No.679 of 2024 U/s.311 Cr.P.C., and the trial Court has allowed it. This is now under challenge.

¶20

3.Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the final report was filed, the investigating agency wanted to introduce some documents, for which he took out a separate petition seeking the leave of the Court to make those documents part of the final report, that came to be dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the investigating agency has not obtained the leave of the Court for further investigation U/s.173 (8) Cr.P.C. and that order has now become final. The learned counsel argued

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

CRL.O.P.No.8750 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.6297 of 2024

¶24

that what the prosecution could not achieve then is now trying to achieve through Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶25

4.Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that nothing was sought to be introduced nor anything which may embarrass a fair trial is attempted. What the prosecutor failed to ask during his chief examination that alone is going to be asked.

¶26

5.This Court considers that filing of a petition U/s.311 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution under circumstances is absolutely unnecessary, as it loads the Court with avoidable paper work. All it requires is that when the witness steps into the box even for cross examination, the prosecution merely has to seek the leave of the Court orally for continuing the cross examination. After all, examination of P.W.1 is not yet complete and indeed the cross examination has not even commenced. This Court, therefore, considers no prejudice would be caused if the prosecution wants to elicit few more answers in aid of its effort to establish the charges.

¶27

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

¶28

kas

¶29

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

¶30

CRL.O.P.No.8750 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.6297 of 2024

¶31

6.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

06.12.2024

¶33

kas

¶34

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation

¶35

¶36

1.Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption City Special Unit-III Alandur, Chennai - 16

¶37

The Special Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate Chengalpattu

¶38

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

¶39

CRL.O.P.No.8750 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.6297 of 2024

¶40

4/4

¶41

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

S.Arul v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Arul 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

S.R.Baskar Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

C.Duraiswamy Vs G.Murugesan

Goutham Jain Vs the State Rep by Its

Sheelarani Vs Sasirekha

Kamala Vs Adaikalam(Died)

E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., Vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity