Madras High Court
D.M.Maheshwaran vs K.Murugesasn on 24 July, 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.07.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED
Crl.RC(MD)Nos.389 of 2016 to 391 of 2016
and
CRL MP(MD)Nos.3865 to 3867 of 2016
Orders Reserved on 14.06.2017
D.M.Maheshwaran : Petitioner / Petitioner /
Accused in all Crl.RCs.
Vs.
K.Murugesasn : Respondent / Respondent /
Complainant in Crl.RC.No.389/2017
R.S.Maniyan : Respondent / Respondent /
Complainant in Crl.RC.No.390/2017
S.Periyasamy : Respondent / Respondent /
Complainant in Crl.RC.No.391/2017
Prayer: Revisions are filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to
set aside the order dated 07.04.2017 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.2619, 2645 and 2642
of 2017 respectively in C.C.Nos.486, 471 and 470 of 2016 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) at Karur.
!For Petitioner :Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
^For Respondents :Mr.P. Athimoolapandian
:COMMON ORDER
The Revision Petitions have been filed praying to set aside the order, dated 07.04.2017 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.2619, 2645 and 2642 of 2017 respectively in C.C.Nos.486, 471 and 470 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) at Karur.
2. By consent, the main Criminal Revision Cases are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. The brief facts, which leading to filing the present Revisions, are as follows:-
The Revision Petitioner in these Revisions is the accused in C.C.Nos.486, 471 and 470 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) at Karur respectively filed by the Respondents herein in the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as private complaints. The Revision Petitioner entered appearance in the above proceedings through his counsel. P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined by the Respondents / Complainants in the above cases and are pending for cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 by the Revision Petitioner herein. While the said cases were posted for several hearing, the Revision Petitioner has not chosen to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2, since the Revision Petitioner was continuously absent for several hearing and hence, there is no progress in the trial of the cases. While the cases are pending for cross- examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, the Revision Petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.Nos.2619, 2645 and 2642 of 2017 respectively in these three pending cases for trial, under Section 5 Cr.P.C., for dispensing with his personal appearance and seeking permission to be represented through his counsel in the above said cases, since he is suffering from ailment and taking medical treatment. The trial Court dismissed the above Miscellaneous Petitions after hearing both sides. Aggrieved by that order of dismissal, the present Revision Petition Nos.Crl.RC(MD)Nos.389 to 391 of 2016 respectively have been preferred before this Court. The Respondents are also entered appearance through their counsel in these Revision Petitions.
4. Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, the counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is aged 52 years and he is suffering from ailment and taking medical treatment in Grace Kennet Foundation Hospital at Madurai for Acute CVA and hemipariesis in his right hand and in furtherance of the same slurry speech is also present and it is a known case of Type ? II DM Systemic Hypertension. He would further contend that petitioner was advised not to travel further to avoid adjusting mouth, because it was suggested in the medical report that deviation of angle of mouth is present and hence, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., before the trial Court and therefore, the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court may be dispensed with and he may be allowed to be represented through his counsel in the trial proceedings. Continuing further, he would submit that the petitioner undertakes to appear on the dates, as and when required by the trial Court. In support of his contention in respect of ailment, he has also produced the Medical Records / Discharge Summary issued by the Hospital.
5. Mr.P. Athimoolapandian, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the appearance of the petitioner is important to this case and he has been getting several adjournments for cross- examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and to avoid the finality of this case, the petitioner / accused has filed these Revisions with mala fide intention.
6. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the rival submissions made by either side. I have also perused the Medical Records / Discharge Summary issued by the Hospital concerned.
7. In a proceedings initiated by the Respondents / Complainants in respect of the cheques issued by the Revision Petitioners / Accused on different dates, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the impugned order has been passed by the trial Judge. The criminal proceedings are pending for cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 by the Revision Petitioner herein. Statutory Notice was also given to the Revision Petitioner in each case in respect of dishonor of cheques and he has replied to the respondents by issuing reply notice prior to the initiation of the proceedings. The Revision Petitioner has been conducting the said proceedings through his counsel also.
8. The petitioner is the resident of Madurai. The criminal proceedings initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Karur. The identification of the petitioner is not at all required to the complainants in conducting the trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner is also appearing through his counsel in the criminal proceedings. Further, the Medical records also would show that he is suffering for ailment and is taking treatment. When the physical presence of the accused in the Court is absolutely necessary, the trial Court can insist upon his physical presence. There is no bar at all in permitting the counsel for the accused to proceed the pending criminal proceedings, including cross-examination of the complainants' witnesses in the absence of the accused.
9. Taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is aged 52 years and he is a resident of Madurai and he is suffering from ailment and nature of the ailment and treatment taken by the petitioner in the Hospital, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Revisions Petitions by setting aside the orders, dated 07.04.2017 passed by the trial Court.
10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed and the order, dated 07.04.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) at Karur in Crl.M.P.Nos.2619, 2645 and 2642 of 2017 respectively in C.C.Nos.486, 471 and 470 of 2016 are set aside and the petition filed by the petitioners before the trial Court, under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., is also allowed and the personal appearance of the Petitioner / Accused in person before the trial Court during the course of the trial is dispensed with on all dates of hearings and he is permitted to appear and represent through his counsel, except on dates, when his personal appearance is required by the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the cases and to dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report the same to this Registry. The petitioner / accused is also directed to co-operate before the trial Court. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Karur.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
3.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
.