Madras High Court
Ganesan vs The State Rep. By on 22 April, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2104 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2104 of 2021
1.Ganesan
2.Murugapandiyan ... Petitioners/Accused
Vs.
The State rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvegambathu Police Station,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to set aside the order, dated 09.07.2019 passed in Cr.R.P.No.04 of
2018 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, against Cr.M.P.No.
4234 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Devakkottai, dated
27.02.2019.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Pugalendhi
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated
09.07.2019 passed in Cr.R.P.No.04 of 2018 on the file of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2104 of 2021
Sessions Judge, Sivagangai in confirming the order in Cr.M.P.No.4234 of
2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakkottai, dated
27.02.2019.
2.The petitioners are facing charges under Sections 294(b), 324,
506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act before the trial Court. On the
side of the prosecution, the petitioners 1 and 2 were examined on
27.04.2018 and PW.3 was examined on 10.08.2018 and PW4 and PW5
were examined on 06.10.2018. Later, the petitioners have filed a petition
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of cross examination. The trial
Court by observing that in spite of opportunity given, they have not
utilized the same and against that proceedings, the petitioners have filed
this petition. The main ground on which the petition came to be filed is
that on the date of examination of PW.1 and PW.2, the learned counsel
for the petitioners fell sick and so they could not cross examine. But it
was disbelieved by the trial Court which was confirmed by the Sessions
Court, Sivagangai.
3.But, however, from the facts and circumstances of the case I am
of the considered view that one more opportunity have to be given to the
petitioners to cross examine PW.1 and PW.2 on payment of cost because
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2104 of 2021
rendering the judgment in Criminal case without cross examining the
material witnesses may cause injustice to the petitioners. So this petition
can be allowed on condition that the petitioners have to pay a sum of Rs.
1,000/- batta as cost to PW1 and PW2 and the same shall be deposited
before the trial Court within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. On deposit being made, the trial Court may re-
call PW1 and PW2 for the purpose of cross examination on a specific
date and the petitioners must cross examine PW1 and PW2 on the same
day itself and on failing to do the same, further right will be forfeited.
4.With this condition, the Criminal Original Petition stands
allowed.
26.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsd
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2104 of 2021
vsd
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Sivagangai.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Devakkottai,
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvegambathu Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2104 of 2021
26.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
