C.Samuel Johnson v. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police
CRL OP NO. 19413 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-07-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP NO. 19413 of 2025 C.Samuel Johnson Joint Sub Registrar(In Charge), O/o. Original Registration Branch, North Chennai, Chennai-1.
Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By Inspector of Police City Special Unit-I, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai. Respondent(s) PRAYER:- This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, pleased to call for entire records in Crl.M.P.No.92 of 2025 in C.C.No.13 of 2014 on the file of the Special Court for the Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, at Chennai including order dated 19.06.2025, set aside the same.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s.Ami.V. Kataria For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal side)
ORDER
The petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.06.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.92 of 2025 in C.C.No.13 of 2014.
2.By the said application, the adjournment petition filed under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. was rejected. The reason that was pleaded was that the counsel was not well. Considering the fact that C.C. is of the year 2014, eventhough the learned counsel for the petitioner would fervently plead that the counsel became ill suddenly and his advanced age are all justifiable, but there must be an end to court proceedings and Court proceedings should go on irrespective of the conveniences and inconveniences of the parties. If any counsel is not well, alternative arrangements have to be made especially when the trial is in advance stage that too when the CC is of the year 2014. Therefore, no fault whatsoever can be found with reference to the order of the trial Court.
3.However, considering the fact that the witness who was not cross examined was the Investigating Officer, whose cross examination will be vital for the defence of the petitioner/accused and further considering the fact that earlier on two occasions the witness was also absent on account of his illness, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner herein. The concerned witness shall be informed that he shall be present in the next hearing. If he is unable to present, on such other date as may be given by the trial Court he shall appear. On the said date the cross examination has to be completed either by the same counsel or if he is not well, by any other counsel. It is for the petitioner to make such
arrangements. No further opportunities will be granted. With the above opportunity being granted to the petitioner/accused, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. 09-07-2025 ep D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
ep To
1. The State Rep By Inspector of Police City Special Unit-I, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court.
CRL OP NO. 19413 of 2025
09.07.2025