P.Sankaran v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.07.2016 (Orders reserved on 28.07.2016)
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Crl.O.P.No.14892 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.7398 of 2016 P.Sankaran .. Petitioner Vs.
State through:
The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai City-III, Nandanam, Chennai-35.
.. Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order dated 06.05.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.867 of 2016 in C.C.No.8 of 2012 on the file of the Special Court for the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.
For petitioner : Mr.R.N.Amarnath For respondents: Mr.P.Govindarajan, Addl.P.P.
ORDER
This Crl.O.P. is filed to set aside the order dated 06.05.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.867 of 2016 in C.C.No.8 of 2012 on the file of the Special Court for the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 242 Cr.P.C. to defer the cross-examination of the witnesses P..W.2 Nazeer Ahamed, till the examination of L.W.2 Vijayakumar, L.W.4 Vyapuri and L.W.7 Mohamed are over.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 3(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in C.C.No.8 of 2012 on the file of the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charges were framed on 27.01.2012. L.W.1 who was the person who gave sanction to prosecute the petitioner/accused, was examined as P.W.1. The prosecution
witness L.W.2 is the de-facto complainant Nazir Ahmed. The Court below had adjourned the case for more than 52 times for appearance of L.W.2. The prosecution has not presented L.W.2 before the Court. On 27.04.2016, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.814 of 2016 seeking to examine L.W.2 immediately. The trial Court directed issuance of summons to L.W.2 and L.W.3 for appearance on 06.05.2016 and on that day, the prosecution examined L.W.3 Vijayakumar as P.W.2. L.W.2 was not present before the Court. According to the prosecution, L.W.3 / P.W.2 is the person who had witnessed the receipt of money by the petitioner/accused. On 06.05.2016, without examining L.W.2, the de-facto complainant, all of a sudden the prosecution had examined L.W.3. The evidence of L.Ws.2,3, 4 and 7 are interlinked and they speak about the same facts. L.W.
2 is the defacto complainant. L.W.4 is the person witnessing the preparation and L.W.7 is the owner of the premises, who allegedly entrusted the work to L.W.2. If L.W.3 is crossexamined immediately, the petitioner/accused will be compelled to disclose his defence in the case and thereby there is a chance of L.Ws.2 and 3 and 7 to improve their evidence in consonance with L.W.3 / P.W.2. Therefore, the petitioner filed the petition under Section 242 Cr.P.C. before the Court below to defer the cross-examination of P.W.2 / L.W.3 till the examination of L.Ws.2, 4 and 7 are over. The Court below dismissed the said petition following the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2015 (1) MLJ (Crl) 288 (SC) (Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab). Challenging the said dismissal order, the petitioner has filed this Crl.O.P. for the relief stated supra.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that when L.W.2 was not produced before the Court inspite of summons issued for more than 52 times by the Court, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the petition filed under Section 242 Cr.P.C.
4. Heard both sides.
5. It is seen that L.W.2's whereabouts are not known and in fact, that is the reason why the prosecution is not in a position to produce him before the Court. The case is pending from 2012. In order to drag on the proceedings further, the petitioner has filed the petition under Section 242 Cr.P.C. It is also to be noted that the respondent-Police are attempting to trace out L.W.2 and produce him before the Court. As stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it may take some considerable time to trace out L.W.2. Under such circumstances, for production of L.W.2, the cross-examination of other witnesses cannot be deferred. The trial Court has rightly considered all the above aspects and by relying upon the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the petition filed under Section 242 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
6. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court. No legal ground has been made out by the petitioner to entertain this petition. Moreover, there is not even any merit in this case warranting this Court to give direction as prayed for in this petition. The trial Court has rightly rejected the petition filed under Section 242 Cr.P.C. by giving sound reasonings and also by following the judgment of the Supreme Court. Therefore, I do not find any valid reason to entertain this Crl.O.P., which is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.7398 of 2016 is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Copy to
1. The Special Judge for the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai City-III, Nandanam, Chennai-35.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, Sr.43550 +1cc to M/S.R.N.Amarnath, Advocate Sr.43138 Crl.O.P.No.14892 of 2016 rp[co] srg 22/08/2016