K.Vinayagamoorthy, v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.02.2017

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BASKARAN Crl.O.P.No.2691 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.1894 of 2017 K.Vinayagamoorthy ..Petitioner/Accused Vs The State rep. By the Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti corruption Vellore Cr.No.17/2014 ..Respondent/Complainant Crl.O.P. filed Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records on the file of the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No304 of 2016 in Special case No 12 of 2014 and set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Poorna Chandran For respondent : Mr.E.Raja, Addl.Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed against the order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, in Crl.M.P.No.304 of 2016 in Special Case No.12 of 2014.

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

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before the trial court, the petitioner could not appear because of ill-health and could not give instructions regarding the cross examination of P.W.3 and his counsel has not cross examined P.W.3 in full. The learned counsel further represented that the counsel for the accused was changed subsequently and the new counsel filed the petition in C.M.P.No.304 of 2016, to recall P.W.3 before the trial court to cross examine further. But, the same was rejected by the trial court pointing out the reasons stated in the impugned order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner/accused has come forward with the above petition contending that cross examination of P.W.3 was not completed in respect of some vital issues and an opportunity be provided to the petitioner to do further cross examination.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also given an undertaking that cross will be done on the same day by the accused before the trial court when P.W.3 was recalled. Thus, the learned counsel seeks to entertain the present Crl.O.P.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State also has no serious objection except stating that the petitioner would not be allowed to protract the proceedings.

7. It is brought to the attention of this court that only upto P.W.3 are examined and the case is pending for examination of further Witnesses. In such circumstances, considering the reasons stated by the petitioner, to meet the ends of justice, this court is inclined to permit the petitioner/accused to further cross examine P.W.3 as sought for by him.

8. In the result, this Crl.O.P., is allowed. The petitioner/accused is directed to complete the cross examination of P.W.3 on the same day when the witness is produced before the trial court and no further adjournment would be sought for by the petitioner, to complete the cross before the trial court. Connected M.P., is closed.

s/d- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub-Assistant Registrar To

1. The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti corruption,Vellore

2. The Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Crl.O.P.No.2691 of 2017 VGI(CO) sp/8/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/