Tamilarasi v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 26.06.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH CRL.OP.No.14798 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 1.Tamilarasi 2.P.Mohan ... Petitioners Vs The State represented by Inspector of Police, CBCID, Puducherry.

... Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 27.05.2015 made in Crl.MP.No.1425 of 2015 in C.C.No.62 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Puducherry.

For Petitioners :Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondents :Mr.Thangavel, Public Prosecutor [Puducherry]

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 27.05.2015 made in Crl.MP.No.1425 of 2015 in C.C.No.62 of 2003 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

3. It is seen that the petitioners are facing prosecution for offences under Section 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC in C.C.No.66 of 2003. The trial commenced and the prosecution examined all the witnesses and the accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the accused filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for summoning one Sivashanmugam, Deputy Commissioner [Customs], as defense witness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Dr.Rajesh Talwar Vs CBI reported in [2013] 4 MLJ Criminal 362 SC that even for examining a witness on the side of the defense, the accused cannot make sweeping request and that the request must be supported by reasons.

4. In this case, the accused contended that they need to examine the said Sivashanmugam for the purpose of confronting with Ex.P7, in which, he seems to have attested.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application holding that Ex.P7 has been marked through PW7 who had been subjected to cross examination by the accused and the request for summoning Sivashanmugam as a defense witness is only a ruse to prolong the trial. This Court finds that this case is of the year 2003 and has had a snail's progress all these years. Further, the reasoning given by the Trial Court for refusing to summon Sivashanmugam cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.

6. In the result, this petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gya To 1.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Puducherry.

2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Puducherry.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

CRL.OP.No.14798 of 2015 SKV(CO) EU 08.07.15 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/