Nandam Suresh, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRL.P. NO.8752 OF 2017 ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. o quash the orders dated 06.06.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3021 of 2017 in C.C.No.521 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anaparthi. 2.

The petitioner filed petition under Section 315 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to adduce evidence on his behalf alleging that C.C.No.521 of 2015 was posted to 11.4.2017 and again to 18.04.2017 for defence evience and later adjourned to 02.05.2017 and he was present on that day. However, the matter was adjourned for defence evidence on 5.5.2017, finally, and the second respondent filed numerous cheque bounce cases before the court below and other courts and the second respondent is money lender and he does not have license and apart from that, under Section 9(2) of A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli prohibits money lending without license and the suit filed is liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that the second respondent is not registered money lender and the petitioner is not allowed to adduce evidence and will be put to irreparable loss and requested the magistrate to permit him to adduce evidence.

3.

The second respondent filed counter denying inter alia contending that nothing prevented the petitioner to examine himself on earlier occasion and the matter was posted for defence evidence on several occasions and Sections 315 and 311 Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the

present case and the question of re-examination does not arise. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed and prayed for dismissal. 4.

Upon hearing argument of learned counsel for petitioner, the trial court dismissed the petition for the reason that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner for four or five times, but he did not turn up and came up with petition under Section 315 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to adduce evidence on behalf of the petitioner before the trial court in C.C.No.521 of 2015 and dismissed the same.

5.

During hearing, learned counsel for he petitioner contended that the second respondent did not possess any licence under A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act and filed several cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. But, to substantiate his contention, the petitioner is required to adduce evidence, but on account of engaging counsel in High Court, in turn he engaged another counsel who did not prosecute the proceedings properly, therefore, the petitioner could not adduce evidence in support of his contention and finally it is contended that in criminal cases, the court must grant adjournments liberally to adduce evidence.

6. Petition was filed before the magistrate under Section 315 Cr.P.C. which permits the accused to examine himself as witness since he is competent witness for the defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges made against him or any person charged together with him at the same trial: Provided that he shall not be called as a witness except on his own request in writing; his failure to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by any of the parties or

the Court or give rise to any presumption against himself or any person charged together with him at the same trial.

7.

Thus, no court can compel the accused to give evidence unless there is compliance with Section 315(1)(a) Cr.P.C. i.e. request in writing by the accused.

8.

In the present case, the petitioner made a request by filing an application in writing under Section 315 Cr.P.C In fact, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. after closure of complainant's evidence explaining the incriminating material that appeared against him, he denied and proposed to adduce defence evidence, thereafter it was adjourned to 1104.2017, 18.04.2017, 2.05.2017 and again on 5.5.2017. But, on any of the occasions, the petitioner did not adduce evidence though sufficient opportunity was given. Finally on 5.5.2017 the evidence of the petitioner was closed. When the petitioner did not avail an opportunity to adduce evidence on four or five occasions, approaching this court by filing an application under Section 315 r/ w 482 Cr.P.C.

is nothing but an abuse of process of the court and the petitioner being an accused is not at liberty to approach the court to file petition under Section 315 r/ w 482 Cr.p.C. with a request to permit him as and when he wishes. Such an act would clearly indicates the mala fides on the part of the petitioner in prosecuting the proceedings from time to time. Therefore, dismissal of application filed under Section 315 Cr.P.C. by the court below is not illegal, warranting interference of this court exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this court. 9.

Though the learned counsel contended that the court must grant adjournments liberally in criminal cases, but I am unable to agree with the

contention since the object of Criminal Justice System is to decide the criminal cases as expeditiously as possible within the time frame, but still the courts did not adhering to such directions and causing delay for one reason or the other, some times on account of conduct of the litigant public before the courts. Therefore, denial of an opportunity to adduce defence evidence by the trial court is not erroneous, since five adjournments were granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence. Hence, I find no ground to set aside the order passed by the court below while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

10.

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.

______________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J DATE:18-09-2017 ccm

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRL.P. NO.8752 OF 2017 Date:18.09.2017 ccm