Madras High Court
Ramar @ Chandran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 12 February, 2024
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1146 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.02.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
CRL.O.P (MD) No.1146 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.772 of 2024
1.Ramar @ Chandran
2.Kannan ...Petitioners
vs
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sivakasi Division,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Maraneri Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
Crime No.53 of 2010
3.Eswari ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the Court of
the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases,
Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur in Crl.M.P.No.4449 of 2023 in
Special S.C.No.19 of 2011 on 09.01.2024.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1146 of 2024
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Jothi Basu
For R1 & R2 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3 in Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur. The Petition filed by the accused 2 and 3 to re-call P.W1, P.W2, P.W17 and P.W19 under Section 311 Cr.P.C., was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur. What was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner created surprise in the mind of this Court. Therefore, this Court had sought remarks of the learned Sessions Judge as the proceeding before the trial Court was not in accordance with Chapter XVIII Cr.P.C., before the Court of Sessions. The learned Judge had not followed the said procedure and had been examining the witnesses as produced by the Police.
2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1146 of 2024
2.As per the procedure, the stage 1 for sessions trial is opening of the prosecution, which means, the prosecution has to submit the arguments regarding the charges that are likely to be framed by the Court and the charges that are likely to be proved by the witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet, for which the defense will submit their reply. Only after this stage, the Trial Court can frame the charges. After framing of the charges, the learned Sessions Judges fix the trial with a tentative date. Along with that, the trial proceedings are sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate from whose Court or from which Court the records were committed to the Sessions Court with a direction that the list of witnesses to be examined on the tentative date should be informed to the SHO of the Police Station concerned to ensure that the witnesses are produced promptly as per the time table fixed by the learned Sessions Judge.
3.Also, directions are issued to the learned Judicial Magistrate to direct the SHO of the Police Station concerned to file a report to the learned Judicial Magistrate as to whether all the witnesses, who are to be examined during the trial proceedings, are available in the place of residence mentioned in the charge sheet. If the witnesses are not available, the trial 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1146 of 2024 will be automatically adjourned with a direction to ensure all the witnesses are available on the adjourned date. This is to ensure that once the trial commences, it will not cause further delay in proceeding with the trial for the absence of the witnesses or for non production of the witnesses.
4.The independent witnesses are examined in the first two days consecutively. For example, if P.W1 is examined on Monday, continuously the other witnesses will also be examined on Monday and Tuesday. From Wednesday onwards, the Official witnesses will be examined. By this method, the entire list produced by the prosecution will be exhausted within the same week, thereby ensuring that the trial proceeds without hindrance. Even in days of Bar boycott, sessions trial are not hindered. Here in this case, it is shocking to note that the witnesses were not examined in the orderly manner as per the list of witnesses in the charge sheet by the learned Sessions Judge, who held the post on the date of commencement of trial.
5.L.W1 was examined as P.W1 on 19.04.2023. L.W2 was examined as P.W2 on 20.06.2023 as though it is a civil case. L.W6 was examined as P.W3 on 12.07.2023. That shows, one witness on once in a month. L.W11 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1146 of 2024 was examined as P.W4 on 31.07.2023. L.W8 was examined as P.W5 on 09.08.2023. L.W12 was examined as P.W6 on 09.08.2023. L.W13 was examined as P.W7 on 09.08.2023. L.W15 was examined as P.W8 on 16.08.2023. L.W16 was examined as P.W9 on 16.08.2023. L.W18 was examined as P.W10 on 25.09.2023. L.W19 was examined as P.W11 on 25.09.2023. L.W20 was examined as P.W12 on 03.10.2023. L.W21 was examined as P.W13 on 06.10.2023. L.W.23 was examined as P.W14 on 11.10.2024. L.W3, who ought to have been examined after L.W2 on 20.06.2023 was examined as P.W15 on 18.10.2023 ie., after four months. That shows, the learned Sessions Judge had not understood the importance of sessions trial and the procedure under Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C. He/she was not assertive. He/she had examined the witnesses as was produced by the Police, who are not trained as Trial Judges. The importance of the sessions trial is understood by the Trial Judges only.
6.Under those circumstances, it is natural for the defense lawyers to defer cross-examination as the witnesses are not produced in regular manner as per the charge sheet. Therefore, they will not be able to cross-examine the witnesses cogently. They reserve their right to cross-examination after all 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1146 of 2024 the witnesses are examined by the prosecution. This is the reason for deferring cross-examination by the defense side Counsel. The fault lies with the Trial Judges. The fault lies with the system for not implementing the time tested procedures that was followed over a period of time to ensure speedy trial.
7.The remarks offered by the present Judge, who preside over the Special Court, state that he took charge only recently, by which only the Investigation Officer was examined. Therefore, he had dismissed the Petition filed by the accused seeking re-call of the witnesses, P.W1, P.W2, P.W17 and P.W19.
8.In the light of the witnesses having been examined in a jumbling order instead of a regular order as per the final report, it has resulted in the learned Counsel appearing for the accused reserving his right to cross- examine the witnesses after completion of the examination of the witnesses by the prosecution. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not followed by the earlier learned Judge, whereas the present Judge had dismissed the Petition filed under 311 Cr.P.C., in the light of the 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1146 of 2024 reported decision, which is mechanically applied in this case, thereby affecting the valuable defense of the accused, which is a guaranteed right under Constitution of India granted to the citizens of this country, who face criminal cases.
9.In the light of the above discussion, the order passed in Spl.S.C.No. 19 of 2011 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur dated 09.01.2024 is found perverse. This is an exceptional case, where the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be mechanically applied.
10.Also, Registry is directed to place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court for appropriate guidelines to the trial Courts for not following the time tested procedures in fixing the trial and hearing the cases of the prosecution, as per the procedure opening of prosecution, which follows the system, whereby the trial commences from opening of the prosecution and ends up in judgment in sessions cases within the time fixed by the learned Sessions Judge, who shall be assertive that the trial ends within a month from opening the case. Only if that is ensured, the ruling of 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1146 of 2024 the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be implemented for early disposal of the Sessions Cases through out the State of Tamil Nadu.
11.With the above discussions and observations, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4449 of 2023 in Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2011 dated 09.01.2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur is hereby set aside. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Internet:Yes./No 12.02.2024
Index:Yes/No
mm
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sivakasi Division,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Maraneri Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1146 of 2024
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mm
CRL.O.P (MD) No.1146 of 2024
12.02.2024
9/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis