Allowed

Deva Prakasam v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC29 Nov 2024CRL RC/2132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition allowed. High Court of Madras found trial court erred by denying summons to two doctors to aid defense in corruption case. Court held denying opportunity based on defense strategy or adjournments violates right to defend and presumption of innocence.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed, Summonses to doctors directed, Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Deva Prakasam Vs the State Rep by Its — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL.R.C.No.2132 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.16927 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 29.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.2132 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.16927 of 2024

Devaprakasam

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Vellore FIR in Crime No.03 of 2014 ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records culminating in the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.11737 of 2024 in Spl.C.C.No.6 of 2015 by the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, Vellore District, examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings made therein, set aside the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Anbumani For Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

ORDER

¶15

CRL.R.C.No.2132 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.16927 of 2024

¶16

This Revision is filed challenging Crl.M.P.No.11737 of 2024 in Spl.C.C.No.6 of 2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, vide order dated 17.10.2024, which the petitioner herein has filed seeking leave of the Court to summon two doctors as witnesses on his side.

¶17

2.The petitioner as a sole accused, is now facing trial for charges U/s.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution has concluded examining its witnesses and the Revision Petitioner himself has entered the box to defend himself and examine himself as D.W.1. Vide Crl.M.P.No.11737 of 2024, he applied to the trial Court to summon two doctors who are supposed to speak in aid of his defence. The trial Court, however, has chosen to dismiss his application on two grounds:

¶18

a) In his cross examination, D.W.1 has left certain vacant spaces and that it cannot be filled up through other witnesses; and

¶19

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

¶21

CRL.R.C.No.2132 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.16927 of 2024

¶22

b) that he had taken some 16 adjournments to bring this application.

¶23

3.Heard Mr.Arun Anbumani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent. In the instant case, the respondent has a very minimal role, as this proceeding essentially concerned with right of an accused to defend the charges and the authority of the Court to short circuit it.

¶24

4.This Court is given to understand that after the said 16 adjournments the petitioner's application to recall some prosecution witnesses were allowed on the leave granted by the trial Court and they were cross examined. The impugned petition under which he applied for summons to two doctors has been taken in the very next posting after his own examination as D.W1. Now, the trial Court in the opinion of this Court has fundamentally erred in two aspects:

¶25

a) It has attempted to weigh the defence strategy far too early when

¶26

in law a defendant in a criminal prosecution who is in peril of losing his freedom needs to be granted optimum opportunity of

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

CRL.R.C.No.2132 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.16927 of 2024

¶30

defending the charges, and therefore no Court can examine the defence strategy far too early to scuttle his right of defence in any manner. This is, however, subject to a rider whether a defendant facing a charge is abusing the procedural opportunities excessively to hamstring the trial process. That is when the Court can step into assert and discipline a litigant, but not otherwise. In this case, the petitioner has opted to examine the two independent witnesses immediately after his own examination. This on facts, the opportunity to him ought not to have been denied.

¶31

b) Turning to the other ground that the petitioner had taken 16 adjournments, but thereafter some business was still happening before the Court when the petitioner had recalled some of the prosecution witnesses and cross examined them. His turn to examine his witnesses come only thereafter.

¶32

The trial Court is advised not to wear the cap of the prosecutor far too early and try to presume the guilt of the accused when law mandates that

¶33

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

CRL.R.C.No.2132 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.16927 of 2024

¶35

his innocence shall be presumed. This balance and neutrality is indispensable for every judge, more so to a trial Judge, who gets an opportunity to watch the witnesses performing before the Court live.

¶36

6.In conclusion, this petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

29.11.2024

¶38

kas Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation

¶39

¶40

1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Vellore Vellore District

¶41

The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Vellore FIR in Crime No.03 of 2014

¶42

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

¶43

5/6

¶44

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

¶45

CRL.R.C.No.2132 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.16927 of 2024

¶46

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

¶47

kas

¶48

Crl.R.C.No.2132 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.16927 of 2024

¶49

29.11.2024

¶50

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Deva Prakasam v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deva Prakasam v. the State Rep by Its

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

M.Ramachandran Vs the Director of

Sethurathnam Ravi Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Ganapathi Vs State Rep by

L.Jagannathh Vs State of Tamilnadu

Sivagami Vs State Represented by

Sudhakaran Nair Vs M/S.Arjunamaravathi Chits P Lt