M.P:.Oscar Nigklin vs The Inspector Of Police on 9 September, 2015

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

M.P:.Oscar Nigklin vs The Inspector Of Police on 9 September, 2015

Bench: S.Vimala

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 09.09.2015  

CORAM   
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA           

CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17419 of 2015   

M.P:.Oscar Nigklin                                      : Petitioner
                        
Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police,
   Colachel Police Station,
   Kanyakumari District.
   Crime No.347 of 2007                                 : Respondent 

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
praying to direct the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Eraniel to dispose the case in C.C.No.25 of 2008 within a stipulated time
that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner          : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For Respondent  : Mr.P.Kandasamy          
                        Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 


:ORDER

The petitioner has come forward with this petition to direct the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel to dispose the case in C.C.No.25 of 2008 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

2.From the perusal of the records, it is evident that the case has been registered for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C.

3.When the accident is not in dispute and the fact that it caused the death of the human being is not also in dispute, the examination of the eye witnesses and the examination of the investigation officer would be sufficient to prove the ingredients of Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C.

4.It is represented that P.Ws.1 and 2 were already been examined, but there was no cross examination of the witnesses, on behalf of the accused person.

5.In such circumstances, there cannot be any blanket order directing the Court to dispose of the case within a limited period as if the Court was not inclined to take up the matter. It is not so. Here is the case, where the direction is sought for only on account of long delay in production of witnesses. It is stated that no summons has been issued to the remaining witnesses. Even though, the mistake is on the part of the accused in not cross examining P.Ws.1 and 2 still, considering the fact that the case is pending in the year 2008, this Court passing the following order:

(I) No request for adjournment shall be made by the accused or on behalf of the accused;

(ii)Whenever the witnesses are produced without asking the Court to defer the cross examination, the cross examination of witnesses shall be completed on the date of chief examination itself and

(iii)in case of indefinite boycott, there would not be any request for adjournment on the ground that there is boycott.

6.Subject to these conditions, the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel is directed to dispose of the case in C.C.No.25 of 2008 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.

1.The Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.

2.The Inspector of Police, Colachel Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court