Madras High Court
R. Chelladurai vs The State Represented By on 21 August, 2024
Author: G. Jayachandran
Bench: G. Jayachandran
Crl.O.P. No.20256 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P. No.20256 of 2024
R. Chelladurai Petitioner
vs.
The State represented by
the Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch
LFIW – I, Gama – 3
Vepery, Chennai Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita, 2023, seeking to set aside the dismissal order
dated 02.07.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.22012 of 2024 in C.C. No.5716 of 2023
as against P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 by the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive
Trial of CCB Cases and CB-CID Metro Cases, Egmore.
For petitioner Mr. N. Kumanan
For respondent Mr. S. Udayakumar
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner is the sixth accused in C.C. No.5716 of 2023 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases and CB-CID Metro Cases, Egmore. Vide order dated 02.07.2024, his application to recall P.Ws. 1 to P.W.7 was allowed by the Trial Court qua P.Ws.4,6 and 7 and disallowed qua P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5. Aggrieved by his https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 6 Crl.O.P. No.20256 of 2024 application being disallowed qua P.Ws.4,6 and 7, the sixth accused is before this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that what applies to P.Ws.4,6 and 7 squarely applies to other prosecution witnesses too. However, the Trial Court has declined to recall P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 who are very vital witnesses and they have to be cross-examined intensively, but, unfortunately, they could not be cross-examined earlier.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that this is a case of cheating and fabriction of documents. The petitioner and the other accused stand charged for the offences under Sections 420,465, 467,468, 471 and 120B IPC. Out of 11 witnesses, the prosecution has, so far, examined 7 witnesses. P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 were examined in chief during September and October 2022. The petitioner and the other accused did not cross-examine them immediately. The prosecution witnesses were partly cross-examined during February 2023 and therafter, recalled and again cross-examined. While so, after examination of 7 witnesses was over, a petition was filed to recall all the 7 witnesses again. The Trial Court, considering that earlier, the recall petition was allowed in respect of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 and they were cross-examined, there is no sufficient https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 6 Crl.O.P. No.20256 of 2024 reason to recall them again. At the same time, the Trial Court has allowed the application in respect of P.Ws. 4,6 and 7. Considering the fact that the petitioner had been given adequate opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses and the petitioner having failed to cross-examine them, they cannot be recalled again and again.
4. In response to the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at least P.Ws.1 and 5 will have to be permitted to be recalled, since certain vital questions have to be posed to them to contradict their versions and disprove the case of the prosecution.
5. From a perusal of the records, it is seen that P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 were once recalled and cross-examined on 29.03.2023. Thereafter, the application to recall was filed on 12.03.2024 to recall them along with other witnesses. The Trial Court, taking note of the fact that P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 were cross-examined on 29.03.2023 pursuant to the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., has declined to entertain the second application to recall the same witnesses. The reasoning given by the Trial Court is in accordance with law and facts. This Court finds no perveristy or illegality in the said order. Repeated recalling of witnesses will defenitely protract the trial indefinitely. The accused are bound to avail of the opportunity to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 6 Crl.O.P. No.20256 of 2024 cross-examine the prosecution witnesses when they are present. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be entertained only if sufficient cause is made out in the application or if, in the opinion of the Court, examination of witnesses is very much necessary. In the case on hand, no case is made out in the application to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5. The Trial Court has observed that recalling these four witnesses will protract the trial. At the same time, as already adverted to above, the Trial Court has also allowed the recall application qua P.Ws.4,6 and 7 upon being satisfied that recalling them is necessary for arriving at a just decision.
This Court, therefore, upholds the order of the Trial Court and as a sequel, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
21.08.2024 cad https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 6 Crl.O.P. No.20256 of 2024 To:
1 The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch LFIW – I, Gama – 3 Vepery, Chennai 2 The Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases and CB-CID Metro Cases Egmore 2 The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai 600 104 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 6 Crl.O.P. No.20256 of 2024 DR. G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
cad Crl.O.P. No.20256 of 2024 21.08.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 6