Madras High Court
Harigovindan vs State Represented By Its Deputy ... on 5 February, 2021
Crl.R.C. No.49 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 05.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.49 of 2021
Harigovindan ... Petitioner
.Vs.
State represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Villupuram District
Cr.No.4 of 2008 ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 or
Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed in C.M.P.No.344
of 2019 in Crl.A.No.59 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram @ Kallakurichi, consequently
allow the petition seeking additional documents.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Subramani
For Respondent : Mr.K.Madhan
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated
17.12.2020 passed in C.M.P.No.344 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.59 of 2007 on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C. No.49 of 2021
the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram
@ Kallakurichi.
2. The petitioner is the appellant in Crl.A.No.59 of 2017, on the file
of learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram @
Kallakurichi and during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner also
filed petition under Section 391 Cr.P.C. in C.M.P.No.344 of 2019 and the
said petition was dismissed by learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Villupuram @ Kallakurichi. Challenging the said order, the
petitioner is before this Court by way of the present revision.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that two
cases have been registered against the petitioner in Cr..Nos. 14 of 2007
and 4 of 2008 in which the de-facto complainant is one and the same and
after investigation in F.I.R.No. 14 of 2008, charge sheet was laid in
C.C.No. 5 of 2009, which was quashed by this Court vide order dated
08.06.2012 in Crl.O.P.No.16691of 2010. He would further submit that
after investigation in Cr.No.4 of 2008 a case was registered in
C.C.No.308 of 2008, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C. No.49 of 2021
Kallakurichi and the trial Court after enquiry convicted the petitioner
under Sections 468 and 471 of I.P.C. as against which the petitioner filed
appeal before the District Sessions Judge, Villupuram and during the
pendency of the Appeal, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 391
Cr.P.C. to receive the additional documents such as F.I.R No.14 of 2007,
Charge Sheet in C.C.No.5 of 2009 and the Judgment copy in C.C.No.5 of
2009 of Judicial Magistrate, Attur as well as the order of this Court in
Crl.O.P.No.16691 of 2010 as these documents are very much necessary
to decide the appeal, but the trial Court failed to consider the same and
dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and therefore the same
warrants interference. He would further submit that the delay is not the
sole ground to disallow the claim under Section 391 Cr.P.C.. In support
of his contention he placed reliance on the Judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the following cases:
(i) Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.,) MVC and The State of Uttar Pradesh
and Ors.,
(ii) Veer Singh Lopoke Ex.MLA Vs. Sukbinder Singh Sarkaria MLA
and another.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C. No.49 of 2021
4. Per contra the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted
that the petitioner has not stated that what way the documents sought to
be filed are relevant to decide the appeal . He would further submit that
the accused who are arrayed as accused in C.C.No.5 of 2009 are not
arrayed as parties in C.C.No.308 of 2008. He would further submit in
order to fill up the lakuna he cannot invoke Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and
further, the appeal was filed in the year 2017 and only after two years
the application to receive the additional documents was filed and
therefore it is very clear that only in order to protract the case the petition
under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was filed and further the requirement under
Section 391 Cr.P.C. was not fufilled. Hence the learned Judge has rightly
dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, which does not warrant any
interference.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.
6. A case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No. 4 of 2008
and after investigation a charge sheet was filed and the same was taken
on file in C.C.No.308 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C. No.49 of 2021
Kallakurichi and the learned Magistrate after framing charges for trial,
convicted the petitioner under Section 468 and 471 I.P.C. Challenging
said conviction and sentence, he filed Appeal before the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram @ Kallakurichui and during the
pendency of the appeal, he filed petition under Section 391 Cr.P.C.
seeking to receive additional documents and the same was dismissed vide
order dated 17.12.2020.
7. A careful reading of the order passed by the trial court would go
to show that the trial court found that the prosecution established its case
beyond reasonable doubt, but in order to get over the Judgment, the
petitioner has filed the petition under Section 391 Cr.P..C for filing of the
additional documents. Further, the trial court also found that the
petitioner has not established in what way, the documents sought to be
received are relevant to the present case and further the accused who are
arrayed as accused in C.C.No.5 of 2009 are not arrayed as accused in
C.C.No.308 of 2008. Further, the appeal was filed in the year 2017 and
only after two years the application to receive the additional documents
was filed and therefore it is very clear that only in order to protract the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C. No.49 of 2021
case the petition under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was filed and further the
requirement under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was not fulfilled. Therefore, under
these circumstances the documents sought for by the petitioner as
Additional evidence is not relevant to decide this case and even if it comes
to Court also the decision will not change. Therefore, under these
circumstances, the learned Judge rightly dismissed the petition. There is
no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge. Further, there is no quarrel over the proposition of law laid doen
in the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But
the facts and circumstances in the present case are not relevant to the
decisions relied on by the counsel for petitioner. The learned Judge in the
present case has dismissed the petition filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C, on
the ground that documents sought to be received are not relevant to
decide the present case and further the accused who are arrayed as
accused in C.C.No.5 of 2009 are not arrayed as accused in C.C.No.308 of
2008 but not on the ground of delay. There is no merit in the revision and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C. No.49 of 2021
8. Accordingly the same is dismissed. Since the Appeal is pending
from 2017, the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Villupuram @ Kallakurichi is directed to dispose of the Appeal in
C.A.No.59 of 2017 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
08.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
arr
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Villupuram District
2. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram @
Kallakurichi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C. No.49 of 2021
P.VELMURUGAN, J
arr
Crl.R.C.No.49 of 2021
05.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C. No.49 of 2021
P.VELMURUGAN, J
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C. No.49 of 2021
Crl.R.C.No.89 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
