Madras High Court
T.Vetrivel vs The State on 27 September, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
Crl.O.P.No.22677 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.09.2024
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Crl.O.P.No.22677 of 2024
T.Vetrivel ... Petitioner / Accused No.3
Vs.
1.The State
Represented by the Inspector of Police
SPE / CBI / EOW
Chennai - 600 006.
(RC No.1/E/2003) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2.T.S.R.Vasudevan
3.R.Ramesh
4.Nirmala ... Respondents 2 to 4
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023
/ 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the case in
C.C.No.14 of 2019 on the file of the learned XI Additional Special Judge for
CBI cases at Chennai-600 001, and to set aside the order made in
Crl.M.P.No.6454 of 2024 dated 05.09.2024 by allowing the petition seeking
for joint trial along with the main case in C.C.No.61 of 2003 on the file of the
very same Court by fixing time limit to conclude the trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.22677 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun
For Respondent : Mr.B.Mohan
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases
ORDER
The present petition is filed seeking for a joint trial of C.C.No.14 of 2019 with
C.C.No.61 of 2003. Indeed the petitioner herein was originally arrayed as A3
in C.C.No.61/2003. The case came to be split up essentially because the
petitioner had met with a road accident, and could rejoin only now, after his
full recovery.
2. The learned Prosecutor had circulated the list of dates and events, which
provide the details as below :
a) On 16.04.2008, charges came to be framed against all the accused
including the present petitioner. The trial had commenced on
16.05.2008, and by 06.01.2012, the prosecution had concluded its
evidence.
b) The accused were questioned under 313 Cr.P.C., on 28.02.2012.
Thereafter, some petitions were filed by some other accused persons for
recalling a few prosecution witnesses, and that came to be allowed, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by 05.03.2019, even the defence had closed its evidence.
c) What happened thereafter was that a petition for alteration of charges
was filed and on 23.09.2019, the trial Court entertained the said
petition. On 05.11.2019, both the sides were heard on alteration of
charges. Eventually on 25.11.2019, charges came to be altered.
Thereafter, the witnesses were recalled, which to state is a literal re-trial
of what had already been done.
d) In between, on 18.11.2019, the case of A3 came to be split up as he met
with an accident and could not appear before Court, and the said case
was assigned C.C.No.14/2019.
e) On 14.08.2024, the present petitioner (A3) re-appeared and
C.C.No.14/2019 came alive. A3 would now file a petition
Crl.M.P.No.6454 of 2024 for its joint trial with C.C.No.61/2003 and
this came to be dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated
05.09.2024.
Hence the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as the main
case is not over, and since his client has recovered from the injuries which he
had suffered in an accident, and wants to participate in the trial, it may be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appropriate that C.C.No.14/2019 is taken along with C.C.No.61/2003. He
added that in view of the fact that some of the co-accused have already
recalled as many as 14 prosecution witnesses, this petitioner wants to recall
five of the witnesses namely P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.22, P.W.26 and P.W.27.
4. Mr.B.Mohan, learned Prosecutor, in his customary vehemence opposed this
petition on the ground that the petitioner's conduct breaches all rules of
fairness. He pointed out that as early as on 06.01.2012, the prosecution had
closed his evidence and on that date A3, the petitioner herein, was fit and
participated in the entire trial. And the defence side evidence was closed only
on 05.03.2019, and the present petitioner did not have any witnesses on his
side. He added that the case in C.C.No.61/2003 had come up for final
arguments atleast on two occasions, and but for alteration of charges and what
happened thereafter, that case in all probability would have even been
disposed of. It is in this circumstances, the case in C.C.No.14/2019 may not
be clubbed with C.C.No.61/2003 for a joint trial.
5. This Court weighed the rival submissions carefully. Here is a scenario
where the trial of the case in C.C.No.61/2003 had kick-started and was on its
track till it was split up on 18.11.2019, when the present petitioner (A3) had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
met with an accident and the charges too came to be altered thereafter, and the
other accused had the advantage of recalling as many as 14 witnesses. Now
that the petitioner had re-appeared, it now enables the trial Court to continue
the trial in C.C.No.14/2019. What prejudice will it cause if both the cases are
clubbed, and how the prosecution, which is entitled to equal degree of fairness
as is being procedurally extended to the accused, will be affected thereby? If
the case in C.C.No.14/2019 has to continue, necessarily the present petitioner
can exercise the same right of recalling the five witnesses in the same case.
This implies, for the same case, the trial Court will be inconvenienced in
writing two separate judgments, that will be cumbersome as it obviously will
involve further wastage of judicial time. Therefore, this Court considers that
it will be in the best interest of all concerned that both the trial Court tries both
the cases together atleast from now.
6. To conclude, this petition is allowed. This Court also permits the petitioner
to recall the five witnesses, but on the following conditions :
a) that the petitioner may have to pay a cost of Rs.7,500/- each to each
of the witnesses, besides other expenses for travelling to the Court
and back home;
b) the witnesses shall be cross-examined on the very date on which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
they are brought to Court by the prosecution;
c) if on the date the said witnesses appear before the Court and if the
witnesses are not cross-examined, the petitioner will forfeit his right
to cross-examine them again. No ground (including any boycott by
the Bar) shall be entertained as a ground for relaxing this condition;
d) recalling the witnesses shall be concluded within three successive
days, and before 04.10.2024, the petitioner herein will apply for
summons to the Court concerned, and the Special Court for CBI
cases is required to complete the cross-examination herein ordered,
on or before 25.10.2024.
27.09.2024
ds
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Note : Issue order copy on 01.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases
Chennai-600 001,
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
27.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
