Madras High Court
S.Karthi vs State Rep. By on 25 February, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.4473 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
CRL.O.P.No.4473 of 2022
S.Karthi ... Petitioner
Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Magudanchavadi Police Station,
Salem District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Sankagiri, to complete the trial of the case in C.C.No.228 of 2018,
pending on its file, within a time limit to be stipulated by this Hon'ble
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijaya Ragavan
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking direction to
the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sankagiri, to complete the trial of the case
in C.C.No.228 of 2018, pending on its file, within the time stipulated by
this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.4473 of 2022
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are 12
witnesses in the prosecution side and so far no single witness was
examined in this case.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case
is posted on 25.02.2022 for examination of PW4 in the witnesses list.
4.Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. The record shows that the FIR in this case was registered on
10.02.2018, the case was taken cognizance for the offences under
sections 294(b), 323, 324 & 506(ii) IPC @ 294(b), 323, 326 & 506(ii)
IPC in C.C.No.228 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Sankagiri. The witnesses list shows that the prosecution has cited 12
witnesses and it is unfortunate that so far not even a single witness has
been examined in this case. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Sankagiri, is directed to expedite the trial process and complete the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.4473 of 2022
trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. Further, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sankagiri, is
directed to follow the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 3 SCC 220
and dispose of the case within the time stipulated by this Court. The
relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
57.Before parting with the case we are
constrained to reiterate what we have said in the
beginning. We have expressed our agony and
anguish the manner in which trials in respect of
serious offences relating to corruption are being
conducted by the trial courts:
57.1.Adjournments are sought on the drop of
a hat by the counsel, even though the witness is
present in court, contrary to all principles of
holding a trial. That apart, after the examination-
in-chief of a witness is over, adjournment is sought
for cross-examination and the disquieting feature
is that the trial courts grant time. The law requires
special reasons to be recorded for grant of time
but the same is not taken note of.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.4473 of 2022
57.2.As has been noticed earlier, in the
instant case the cross-examination has taken place
after a year and 8 months allowing ample time to
pressurize the witness and to gain over him by
adopting all kinds of tactics.
57.3.There is no cavil over the proposition
that there has to be a fair and proper trial but the
duty of the court while conducting the trial to be
guided by the mandate of the law, the conceptual
fairness and above all bearing in mind its
sacrosanct duty to arrive at the truth on the basis
of the material brought on record. If an accused
for his benefit takes the trial on the path of total
mockery, it cannot be countenanced. The Court
has a sacred duty to see that the trial is conducted
as per law. If adjournments are granted in this
manner it would tantamount to violation of rule of
law and eventually turn such trials to a farce. It is
legally impermissible and jurisprudentially
abominable. The trial courts are expected in law to
follow the command of the procedure relating to
trial and not yield to the request of the counsel to
grant adjournment for non-acceptable reasons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.4473 of 2022
57.4.In fact, it is not all appreciable to call a
witness for cross-examination after such a long
span of time. It is imperative if the examination-in-
chief is over, the cross-examination should be
completed on the same day. If the examination of a
witness continues till late hours the trial can be
adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It
is inconceivable in law that the cross-examination
should be deferred for such a long time. It is
anathema to the concept of proper and fair trial.
57.5.The duty of the court is to see that not
only the interest of the accused as per law is
protected but also the societal and collective
interest is safe-guarded. It is distressing to note
that despite series of judgments of this Court, the
habit of granting adjournment, really an ailment,
continues. How long shall we say, "Awake!
Arise!". There is a constant discomfort. Therefore,
we think it appropriate that the copies of the
judgment be sent to the learned Chief Justices of
all the High Courts for circulating the same
among the learned trial Judges with a command to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.4473 of 2022
follow the principles relating to trial in a requisite
manner and not to defer the cross- examination of
a witness at their pleasure or at the leisure of the
defence counsel, for it eventually makes the trial
an apology for trial and compels the whole society
to suffer chicanery. Let it be remembered that law
cannot allowed to be lonely; a destitute.
6. The respondent is directed to produce the witnesses on the date
of hearing. It is also made clear that the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner/accused should not seek any adjournment when the
witnesses are produced for examination and should complete the cross
examination on the same day.
7. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is
disposed of.
25.02.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
sli
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.4473 of 2022
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Sankagiri.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Magudanchavadi Police Station,
Salem District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.4473 of 2022
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.,J
sli
CRL.O.P.No.4473 of 2022
25.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
