Madras High Court
P.Kannan vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 February, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2590 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2590 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.1768 of 2025
P.Kannan .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Inspector of Police
Dindigul CBCID Police Station
Dindigul District .. Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to set aside the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3885 of 2024 in
C.C.No.257 of 2017 dated 02.01.2025 before the Principal Special Court
for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2590 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the
impugned order passed by the Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS
Act Cases, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.3885 of 2024 in C.C.No.257 of 2017
dated 02.01.2025.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is the first accused in the main case. Before the trial
Court P.W. 1 and P.W.2 were examined in chief on 05.02.2024 and
26.09.2024 respectively and the prosecution evidence was closed on
02.12.2024. Unfortunately none of the witnesses were cross examined.
Since the accused were under the custody they did not know about the
stage of the case and the consequence of cross examination of the
witnesses. Subsequently the petitioner/accused changed his counsel and
thereafter they came to know about the failure to cross examination of the
witnesses and thereafter filed a petition to recall P.W. 1 and P.W.2 for
cross examination before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.3885 of 2025 and
the same was dismissed by an order dated 02.01.2025 by citing the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AG Vs Shiv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kumar Yadav reported in 2016(2)SCC 402 and no explanation is stated
by the petitioner. Infact the petitioner is in custody and due to unavoidable
circumstances, previous counsel failed to examine P.W.1 and P.W. 2.
Therefore in order to give a fair chance to the petitioner, P.W. 1 and P.W.2
may be recalled for cross examination.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent submitted that in this case P.W. 1 was examined on
05.02.2024. P.W. 3 was examined on 23.10.2024, thereafter prosecution
side evidence was closed on 02.12.2024 but the counsel for the petitioner
has not cross examined any witneses and now the case is posted for
defence witness, at this stage they filed this petition without any reason.
There are no acceptable reasons stated by the petitioner. Further the trial
Court has passed a well reasoned order and hence the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is in custody. Already they
have engaged counsel and while examining P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
previous counsel has not cross examined P.W.1 and P.W.2. In the petition
filed by the petitioner they only stated that due to unavoidable
circumstances the counsel was not able to cross examine the witnesses.
There are no reasons stated by the petitioner in the petition. However
witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not been cross examined by the petitioner
and the petitioner is in custody. Now after change of counsel they filed a
petition to cross examine the witnesses. Though there are no valid reasons
stated by the petitioner in the petition, since the petitioner is in custody
and he is unable to engage counsel to defend his case in a proper manner
and considering the grave nature of charges and also inorder to give fair
chance to the petitioner, this Court is of view that the petitioner has to be
given one more chance. Though the trial Court has relied judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the guidelines issued in AG Vs Shiv Kumar
Yadav reported in 2016(2)SCC 402 failed to consider that the petitioner is
in custody and the case was not properly defended and the witnesses were
not cross examined.
6. In view of the same, the Criminal Original Petition stands
allowed and the order passed by the Principal Special Court for EC and
NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dated 02.01.2025 is set aside. The petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
shall pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as costs to each of the witnesses P.W.1 and
P.W.2. The witnesses to be produced by the respondent police
immediately after the next hearing date which is fixed by the trial Court.
The trial Court shall fix the date for recall of witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2
by drawing schedule and such process to be completed within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently
connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
12.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
To
1. The Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police
Dindigul CBCID Police Station
Dindigul District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.DHANABAL,J.
aav
12.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
