Madras High Court
Abhavanan vs State on 27 April, 2016
Author: P.Devadass
Bench: P.Devadass
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.4.2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE P.DEVADASS
Crl.O.P. No.9686 of 2016
1. Abhavanan
2. Mrs. Thenmozhi Abhavanan
.. Petitioners
Vs.
State, represented by
Inspector of Police,
CBI, A.C.B., Chennai .. Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the record in Crl.M.P.No.1435 of 2016 in C.C.No.52 of 2003 on the file of XI Addl. Sessions Court for (CBI Bank Fraud Cases) at Chennai and set aside the order dated 22.4.2016 and given an opportunity and to permit cross examine the recall witnesses PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6, PW22 and PW23 .
For Petitioner : Mr.d. Durairaj
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan
Spl. Public Prosecutor, CBI Cases.
O R D E R
This Criminal Original petition has been filed by Accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.52 of 2003 on the file of XI Additional Special Judge, (CBI Cases), Chennai aggrieved by the dismissal of recall petition filed in Crl.M.P.No.1435 of 2016.
2. In this case, 313 Cr.PC., examination over. The case is at the defence stage. At this juncture, A4 and A5 who are the petitioners herein have filed the said C.M.P.No.14315 of 2016 to recall PW2 to PW4, PW6, PW22 and PW23 to cross examine on further aspects.
3. The trial judge went deep into the matter and the law on the point, the law relating to section 311 Cr.P.C., and dismissed the petition and disclosed his mind for such conclusion, more particularly in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, which is reproduced in vernacular as it is.
7. ,e;j tHf;F fle;j 13 Mz;LfSf;F nkyhf epYitapy; ,Uf;fpwJ/ ,e;j 4.5 vjphpfs; XhpUKiw jtpu kw;w tha;jh njjpfspy; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M$uhdnj ,y;;iy vd;gij tHf;F ehl;Fwpg;gpd; K:yk; mwpa KofpwJ/ ,j;jifa NH;epiyapy; ,e;j kDtpy; m/rh/2. M/rh/4. M/rh/6. M/rh/22. M/rh/23 Mfpa rhl;rpfis kWgoa[k; Fwf;F tprhuiz bra;a ,e;j kDjhuh;fs; mDkjp nfhhpa[s;shh;fs;/ m/rh/2 ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; rhl;rpak; mspg;gjw;fhf 21/6/2005. 8/9/2005. 12/5/2006. 26/5/2006 Mfpa njjpfspYk; nkYk; kDjhuh;fs; jug;g[ Fwf;F tprhuizf;fhf 30/6/2006 njjpapYk; Mf bkhj;jk; 5 Kiw ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F te;Js;shh;/ m/rh/3 ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; rhl;rpak; mspg;gjw;fhf 30/6/2006. 12/9/2007. 8/1/2008. 23/4/2008. 16/6/2008. 15/12/2008. 9/1/2009./ 26/3/2009. 16/4/2009 nkYk; 4. 5 vjphpfspd; jug;g[ Fwf;F tprhuizf;fhf 14/8/2014. 26/8/2014. 10/10/2013/ 22/10/2013 Mf bkhj;jk; 13 Kiw ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F te;Js;shh;/ m/rh/6 rhiy tpgj;jp;y; gLfhak; mile;jtuhthh;/ gazk; bra;a Koahky; ,Ue;jhYk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; rhl;rpak; mspg;gjw;fhf 10/3/2010 xU Kiwa[k; ,e;j 4.5 vjphpfs; jug;g[ Fwf;F tprhuizf;fhf 7/10/2015 ?Mk; njjpa[k; ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; te;Js;shh;/ m/rh/22 18/3/2013?Mk; njjp xU Kiwa[k;. ,e;j 4.5 vjphpfSf;F Fwf;F tprhuizf;fhf 7/5/2013. 20/5/2013. 14/6/2013 Mf bkhj;jk; 4 Kiw ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F te;Js;shh;/ m/rh/23. 4/6/2013. 17/6/2013. nkYk; ,e;j 4.5 vjphpfs; jug;g[ Fwf;F tprhuizf;fhf 18/6/2013 Mf K:d;W Kiw ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F te;Js;shh;/
4. Now canvassing the correctness of the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the accused be given a reasonable opportunity. The accused, in order to prove vital aspect is required to cross examine the Investigation Officer on certain facts known to him.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI Cases repelled him and he reiterated the contentions which were placed on behalf of the prosecution before the trial court here also.
6. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order and referred to the reasoning stated. It is not a case where no opportunity at all been given to the petitioner. Already the defence/A4, A5 has objected the witnesses to the cross examination. Several opportunities have been given. In such circumstances, the trial Court had taken such a decision and it is of the view that it is an attempt to derail the trial. It is not a case of no opportunity at all been given to the defence. In the facts and Dr.P.DEVADASS, J.
msr circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the orders passed by the trial Court.
7. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, however the trial Court will proceed further in accordance with law giving necessary reasonable opportunity to both sides and dispose it at an early date. Consequently, the connected Crl.M.P.No.5002 of 2016 is closed.
27.4.2016 Msr Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To
1.The XI Additional Special Judge, (CBI Cases), Chennai
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police, CBI, A.C.B., Chennai Crl.O.P. No.9686 of 2016