← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/5561/2023allowed

Manivannan v. Inspector Of Police

2023-03-10Honourable Mr Justice G. Chandrasekharan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.03.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN Crl.O.P.No.5561 of 2023 Crl.M.P.No.3474 of 2023 Manivannan ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sethiyathope Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No.70 of 2016 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.5324 of 2022 in C.C.No.179 of 2016 dated 24.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chidambaram. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.5324 of 2022 in C.C.No.179 of 2016 dated 24.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chidambaram.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner filed C.M.P.No.5324 of 2022 in C.C.No.179 of 2016 under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling P.W.1 to P.W.3 for the purpose of cross-examination. They could not be cross-examined due to the personal inconvenience of the counsel then appearing for the petitioner. However, without considering the petitioner's claim, that petition was dismissed. Therefore, this petition. 3.In response, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined on 09.04.2019. Since, they were not cross-examined, the evidence was closed. Thereafter, the other witnesses were examined and now the case is pending for examination of Investigation Officer on 24.03.2023.

4.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 2/6

5.This Court finds that the reason given by the petitioner for not crossexamining the P.W.1 to P.W.3 that due to personal inconvenience of the counsel for the petitioner, the cross-examination could not be conducted cannot be accepted. However, in a criminal trial, the cross-examination of witnesses is absolutely necessary to find out the truth in the case. 6.In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that petitioner may be permitted to cross-examine P.W.1 to P.W.3 on payment of costs. Accordingly, order dated 24.01.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.5324 of 2022 in C.C.No.179 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chidambaram, is set aside and C.M.P.No.5324 of 2022 in C.C.No.179 of 2016 is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- each to P.W.1 to P.W.3 through Court.

On such payment, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chidambaram, is directed to recall P.W.1 to P.W.3 for the purpose of cross-examination. These witnesses should be cross-examined on the day they appear for crossexamination. Failing cross-examination, it is made clear that, petitioner will not be entitle to again seek for recall of these witnesses.

7.With the above direction and observation, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

10.03.2023 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No ep Note:- Issue order copy on 10.03.2023 4/6

To:

1.The Inspector of Police, Sethiyathope Police Station, Cuddalore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

ep Crl.O.P.No.5561 of 2023 Crl.M.P.No.3474 of 2023 10.03.2023 6/6