Madras High Court
P.K.Panchaksharam vs State Rep. By on 7 November, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
Criminal Original Petition No.26818 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.11.2024
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Criminal Original Petition No.26818 of 2024
P.K.Panchaksharam ... Petitioner / Accused
Vs.
State rep. by
Deputy Superintendent of Police
Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Kancheepuram.
[Cr.No.24/AC/2010/KPM) ... Respondent / Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS
praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kancheepuram in Crl.M.P.No.169 of 2024 in New Spl.
C.C.No.04 of 2024 (Old Spl. C.C.No.14 of 2011) dated 04.10.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ezhil Nilavan
For Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate [Crl. Side]
ORDER
The petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the Special Court for Vigilance and Anti Corruption cases (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4 Criminal Original Petition No.26818 of 2024 Kancheepuram in Crl.M.P.No.69/2024 in New Spl.C.C.No.04/2024 (previously Spl.C.C.No.14/2011), which the prosecution had filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for recalling P.W.9, the forensic scientific officer.
2. This application was filed after the arguments were concluded by both sides, and the trial Court has allowed the prosecution to recall P.W.9. Challenging the said order, the present revision was filed by the petitioner / accused person.
3. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner / accused person submitted that P.W.9 had produced two reports, and the first report carried an error, and this was rectified in the second report. However, when the witness was in the box, the second mentioned report was not marked and P.W.9 was cross-examined extensively based on the first report, which alone came to be marked as Ext.P13. And, even the arguments for the defence was largely rooted on the first report, which alone has been marked. Now the rear guard action which the prosecution attempts will be prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner in defending the charges against him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4 Criminal Original Petition No.26818 of 2024
4. Per contra, the learned Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution is willing to forego the benefit of the order passed by the learned trial Judge but the trial Court has the authority to suo motu mark the documents under Section 293 Cr.P.C.,
5. Since Cr.P.C., vests the Court with necessary power under Section 293 Cr.P.C., this Court chooses to act on the statement of the learned Prosecutor. If however the petitioner intends to cross-examine P.W.9 on the second report, then he is free to apply for necessary process for summoning. In other words, he need not move the trial Court with any application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to recall P.W.9.
6. In view of the above, the criminal original petition is disposed of accordingly.
07.11.2024 ds Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Note : Issue order copy on 08.11.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4 Criminal Original Petition No.26818 of 2024 N.SESHASAYEE.J., ds To:
1.The Special Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate Kancheepuram.
2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P. No.26818 of 2024
07.11.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4