Madras High Court
T.Ganeshan vs The State Rep. By Its on 29 April, 2025
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7637 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 29.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7637 of 2025
T.Ganeshan ... Petitioner
versus
The State Rep. By its
The Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent
Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking a direction to
the trial Court to expedite C.C.No.3 of 2016 on the file of the learned II
Additional District Judge (CBI Cases), Madurai, within a stipulated
period fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
For Respondent : Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan,
Special Public Prosecutor for
CBI Cases
ORDER
The petitioner is a former Chief Manager in the Oriental Bank of
Commerce. He was prosecuted by the respondent Police in C.C.No.3 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 12:34:38 pm )
2016 before the learned II Additional District Judge (CBI Cases),
Madurai, for the offence under Sections 120(b) r/w. 420, 409, 468 and
471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance
that the final report was filed in the year 2016 and the same was taken on
file in the year 2016 itself, but, the trial has not been concluded for the
past nine years. He further claims that though he is attending the Court
regularly, the trial Court is not paying any attention for this case.
Therefore, he sought for a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial
in C.C.No.3 of 2016 within a stipulated time.
2. Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for
CBI Cases, takes notice for the respondent and submits that though the
final report was filed in the year 2016, they have filed a supplementary
charge sheet on 16.11.2020. According to him, there are totally 11
accused in this case and the accused, by filing several interlocutory
applications, delayed the process of framing the charges. The charges
were framed on 11.01.2017. Thereafter, the 4th accused absconded and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 12:34:38 pm )
therefore, a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued as against the 4th accused.
The accused Nos.6 and 7 have also died in the year 2018. After the filing
of the supplementary charge sheet on 16.11.2020, additional charges
were framed on 26.11.2021. P.W.1 was examined from 15.02.2019 to
13.03.2019. P.W.2 was examined in chief on 24.05.2019, however, he
was cross examined only on 07.05.2024. The petitioner has cross
examined P.W.2 only on 24.12.2024 by recalling him. The learned
Special Public Prosecutor further submits that P.W.3 was examined in
chief on 14.10.2022 and he was cross examined by the 1st accused on
03.01.2023. This is how the accused are delaying the process of trial.
Therefore, it is very difficult for the trial Court to conclude the trial.
3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that
directions were already issued in 18 other cases and therefore, the trial
Court is constrained to give priority to those cases, where directions were
issued. The learned counsel has also relied on the Judgment of he
Hon'ble Constitution Bench, reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267 (High Court
Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 12:34:38 pm )
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course,
should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the
disposal of cases pending before any other courts.
Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-
bound disposal of cases only in exceptional
circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of
cases should be best left to the decision of the courts
concerned where the cases are pending.”
Therefore, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, if any time
is stipulated, other cases would not be taken up for hearing.
4. This Court considered the rival submissions made.
5. Admittedly, the charge sheet was filed in the year 2016 and it
was also taken on file in the year 2016 itself. It appears that there are 53
witnesses. Out of 53 witnesses, the trial Court has examined only P.W.1
to P.W.4 and the remaining witnesses are yet to be examined. In the
event, if the trial is progressed in such a manner, then, the trial Court may
consume another 10 years for completing the entire prosecution case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 12:34:38 pm )
This Court is not inclined to issue any direction in view of the direction
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited above. At the same time, it
is the duty and responsibility of the trial Court to conclude the cases on
chronological basis and give priority to other cases. Admittedly, this case
is of the year 2016 and priority has to be given to old year cases.
Therefore, this Court expects that the trial Court would give priority on
chronological basis and conclude the case without any further delay.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
29.04.2025
ogy
NCC : Yes / No.
Index : Yes / No.
Internet:Yes / No.
To
1. The II Additional District Judge (CBI Cases)
Madurai.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 12:34:38 pm )
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
29.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 12:34:38 pm )
