Ramalingam v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 27.04.2015 DELIVERED ON : 29.04.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.No.2966 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 Ramalingam .. Petitioner vs.

The Inspector of Police CCIW CID, Thiruvallur.

.. Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in respect of the order dated 27.10.2014 passed in CMP No.6555 of 2014 in C.C.No.26 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri and set aside the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Dinesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, APP

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to call for the records in respect of the order dated 27.10.2014 passed in CMP No.6555 of 2014 in C.C.No.26 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri and set aside the same.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

3. The petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.26 of 2006 before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses from 2009 to 2011 and two years later, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.,C. and at that juncture, the petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in CMP No.6555 of 2014 to recall P.Ws.1 to 13, which was dismissed by the trial Court by a well considered order on 27.10.2014, aggrieved by which the petitioner/accused has approached this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable, in view of the various judgments of the Supreme Court which he relies upon. It is true that the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C can be filed any

time before the judgment is delivered, but the Supreme Court has laid down the parameters and guidelines for entertaining a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in Vijay Kumar vs. State of U.P. [2012 2 MLJ crl 284 SC].

5. In this case, as could be seen from the order passed by the trial court, the prosecution witnesses were cross examined as under:

S.No.

Prosecutio n Witnesses Chief Examination Cross Examination P.W.1 27.07.2009 27.07.2009 P.W.2 06.08.2009 02.06.2011 07.07.2011 P.W.3 24.11.2009 07.07.2011 P.W.4 28.01.2010 30.01.2010 02.06.2011 P.W.5 28.01.2010 02.06.2011 P.W.6 13.05.2010 22.09.2011 P.W.7 20.05.2010 07.07.2011 P.W.8 02.06.2010 22.09.2011 P.W.9 16.09.2010 22.09.2010 P.W.10 16.09.2010 16.06.2010 P.W.11 16.09.2010 24.11.2011 P.W.12 28.10.2010 28.10.2010 P.W.13 24.02.2011 07.11.2013

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has changed a new lawyer and hence, he seeks permission to recall the witnesses. Change of lawyer cannot be a ground for recalling witnesses, for, that will lead to travesty of justice. This Court cannot be oblivious to the facts adopted by the accused by recalling witnesses and make them turn hostile. This was noticed by the Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar [(2013) 8 Scale 316. ].

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court and accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS III) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar gms

To 1.The Inspector of Police, CCIW CID, Thiruvallur.

2. Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

1 cc to Mr.R. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, Sr. 24398 Crl.O.P.No.No.2966 of 2015 PA (CO) kk 7/5