Manivannan v. The Court Of Special Court Under Tnpid Court Act

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

1. Manivannan S/o. Krishnasamy, No.216/10, Nataraj Nagar, Near Nesakarangal, Mahendirapuri, kannaguruchi, Salem District.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Court of Special Court under TNPID Court Act 2.The State rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police Economic Offence Wing-II, Salem.

Respondent(s) PRAYER: The criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 to direct the 1st respondent to take up C.C.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special under the TNPID Court Act, Coimbatore, for trial proceedings and to dispose of the same expeditiously or pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.B.Karthikeyan For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Vinothraja Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R2

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking early disposal of trial in C.C.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court under the TNPID Act, 2.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a victim and he has been cited as LW 404. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a cancer patient and therefore, he needs money for meeting his medical expenses. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking early disposal of the trial in C.C.No.6 of 2019.

3.

The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for the second respondent submitted that the case involves cheating of more than 2,000 persons and that there are totally 2,000 witnesses in this case. The petitioner was cited as LW404 and he has already been examined by the trial Court. However, about 1,500 witnesses are yet to be examined. Meanwhile, the bail granted to A3 was cancelled and he is absconding. The respondent police are taking steps to secure him.

4.

It is pertinent to state that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, has held that the constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other court. The relevant portion of the said decision for the sake of ready reference is reproduced below: "47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the timebound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending."

(emphasis supplied by this Court).

It has also been held in the aforesaid extracted portion that in exceptional circumstances, constitutional courts may issue directions for time bound disposal of cases.

5.

Given the petitioner's serious indisposition and his need for money to meet his medical expenses, though this Court sympathises with him, in view of the fact that there are more than 2,000 witnesses in this case to be

examined, it will not be justifiable on the part of this Court to give a direction to the Trial Court to complete the trial within a specified time frame, inasmuch as, such a direction will be impracticable to be complied with by the Trial Court. In such view of the matter, this Court directs the Trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.

6.

With the above direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of.

26-11-2025 sms To 1.The Special Judge for TNPID Act Cases 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Economic Offence Wing-II, Salem.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J.

sms 26-11-2025