Madras High Court
Suji @ Kasi vs The Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2021
Crl. R.C.(MD)Nos.316 and 321 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
Crl. R.C.(MD)Nos.316 and 321 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.10601 and 10602 of 2021
Suji @ Kasi .. Petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.316/2021
Thangapandiyan .. Petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.321/2021
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
CBCID Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
CBCID Cr.No.4 of 2020.. .. Respondent in both Crl.R.C.s
Common Prayer : These Revision Cases are filed under Section 397 (1) r/w.
Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order in
Crl.M.P.Nos.808 and 809 of 2021 in C.C.No.28 of 2021 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, at Nagercoil dated 03.03.2021 and set aside
the same.
(In both Crl.R.Cs)
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kathirvel, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Seenivasan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. R.C.(MD)Nos.316 and 321 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Revisions have been filed to set aside the order in
Crl.MP.Nos.808 and 809 of 2021 in C.C.No.28 of 2021 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Nagercoil, dated 03.03.2021.
2. A case in Crime No.4 of 2020 was registered against the
petitioners and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.28 of 2021, on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil. The petitioners filed petitions for a
relief of de novo trial in Crl.M.P.Nos.808 and 809 of 2021. That petitions
were dismissed by the trial Court. Against the same, the petitioners have
approached this Court by way of these Revisions.
3. On the side of the revision petitioners, it is stated that the
petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.316 of 2021 was arrayed as A1 and the
petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.321 of 2021 was arrayed as A2, in Crime No.4
of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, 465, 467, 471, 384, 506(i), 468, 419,
294(b) I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant
Interest Act, 2003. The petitioners in both the revisions are father and son. The
charge sheet was filed during the lock down period, ie.02.08.2020 and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. R.C.(MD)Nos.316 and 321 of 2021
same was taken on file on 06.08.2020, taken up for trial on 12.08.2020. P.W.1
and P.W.2 were examined on 24.08.2020, P.W.3 to P.W.5 were examined on
26.08.2020, P.W.6 to P.W.10 were examined on 07.09.2020, P.W.11 to P.W.
15 were examined on 14.09.2020, P.W.16 to P.W.21 were examined on
21.09.2020, P.W.22 to P.W.28 were examined on 23.09.2020, P.W.29 to P.W.
35 were examined on 28.02.2020, through video conference mode. The
petitioners filed petitions in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9988 and 1046 of 2020, before
this Court, for transfer of the case and the case was transferred and an order of
stay was granted. The first accused cross examined some of the witnesses,
there was absolutely no cross examination on the side of the second accused.
The case was transferred to the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Nagercoil, by the order of this Court, dated 15.10.2020. Without any legal
assistance on the side of the defence, the case was taken up for trial in a
hurried manner. The petitioners are to be given an opportunity to cross
examine the witnesses. The right of fair trial is granted under the Constitution
of India and under Section 326 of Cr.P.C. Since the case was transferred from
one Court to another Court, an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses to
be given and an order of de novo trial is necessary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. R.C.(MD)Nos.316 and 321 of 2021
4. To substantiate this claim, a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Criminal Appeal No.886 of 2020 [Subedar V. State of Uttar
Pradesh], dated 18.12.2020, is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:-
“It is well accepted that right of being represented
through a counsel is part of due process clause and is referable to
the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India”.
5. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that out of the 45
witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses, the prosecution has examined 35
witnesses and other witnesses were dispensed with by the prosecution. 313
Question was over. Only P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined through video
conference system. The petitioner has appointed three different Advocates.
After withdrawing the appearance of one of the Advocates, the petitioners
sought for legal aid. After the appointment of a legal aid counsel, the
petitioners withdraw the memo and they engaged another Advocate. Only as a
delaying tactics, the petitioners filed various petitions before this Court,. In
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9988 and 10462 of 2020, this Court permitted the petitioners
to apply for recall of witnesses for the purpose of cross examination. Instead
of recalling the witnesses, the petitioners have come forward with these
petitions for de novo trial. There is no such provision in warrant cases. Only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. R.C.(MD)Nos.316 and 321 of 2021
as a delaying tactics, the petitioners have filed these petitions. The petitioners
are father and son, they had four previous cases in those cases, there was an
allegation of harassment to 105 women and they took photographs and black
mailed them and hence bail was not granted to the petitioners in the previous
case. The right for speedy trial is available for complainant also. The third
accused has cross examined the witnesses. Only with a motive to drag on the
case, the petitioners failed to cross examine the witnesses and prayed the
petitions to be dismissed.
6. It is seen that out of the three accused involved in the offence, A3
has already cross examined all the witnesses. 35 witnesses were already
examined and on the petition filed by the petitioners the case was transferred
from one Court to another Court. There is no bar in Cr.P.C for continuation of
a trial, by the subsequent judicial Officer. By averring de-novo trial, the entire
evidence already recorded will become useless. It will be prejudice to A3,
who has already done his part of cross examination. The petitioners are
already in custody. By a de novo trial, there is a chance for delay in the
proceedings. Already liberty to recall the witnesses was given to the
petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9988 and 10462 of 2020 by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. R.C.(MD)Nos.316 and 321 of 2021
7. In the above circumstances, there is nothing sufficient enough to
interfere in the order of the trial Court. Since the right of speedy trial is
granted both to the accused and to the defacto complainant, this Court directs
the trial Court to speed up the trial and to dispose of the case within a period
of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, these Criminal Revision Cases are
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
23.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Ls
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. R.C.(MD)Nos.316 and 321 of 2021
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.III,
Nagercoil.
2. The Inspector of Police,
CBCID Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. R.C.(MD)Nos.316 and 321 of 2021
R.THARANI, J.
Ls
Crl. R.C.(MD)Nos.316 and 321 of 2021
23.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
