Seshasayanam v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.03.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

1. Seshasayanam, S/o.Nagarajan

2. Krishnaveni, W/o.Raguraman ... Petitioners Vs.

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.8290 of 2023 in C.C.No.95 of 2021 subsequently recall the PW 1 and PW 4 to PW 19 in C.C.No.95 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruvannamalai.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Krishna Moorthy For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor ***** 1/4

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below in Crl.M.P.No.8290 of 2023 in C.C.No.95 of 2021, dated 12.02.2024, dismissing the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW-1, PW-4 to PW-19 for crossexamination.

2. Heard Mr.M.Krishna Moorthy, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent.

3. The petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A4. It is seen from the order passed by the Court below that when these witnesses [PW-1, PW-4 to PW-19] were examined in chief before the trial Court for the reasons unknown, those witnesses were not cross-examined even though the petitioners and their counsel were present in the Court. Therefore, the Court below has come to a right conclusion that an application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed as a matter of course. That apart, there is no reason assigned in the application filed u/s.311 Cr.P.C. as to why the petitioners were not able to cross-examine the witnesses when they 2/4

appeared before the Court and deposed.

4. Taking into consideration and facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of defence that is sought to be taken by the petitioners, this Court deems it fit to give one opportunity to the petitioners to only recall PW-1, who is the de facto complainant in this case for cross-examination. The defence that is sought to be established by the petitioners need not be done by recalling each and every witness, who are also victims like PW-1. Therefore, recalling PW-1 for crossexamination itself will be a sufficient opportunity for the petitioners to establish their defence.

5. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court below is interfered to the extent that PW-1 shall be recalled and cross-examined on the same day of his appearance and the crossexamination shall be completed on the same day. If for any reason the petitioner fails to cross-examine PW-1 on the date of his appearance, the petitioner will loose his right to recall PW-1 in future. N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

3/4

gm This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of in the above terms. 08.03.2024 Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order Index :Yes/No gm To

1. The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Criminal Original Petition No.5590 of 2024 4/4