Madras High Court
K.K.Velusamy vs M/S.Sri Hari Krishna Cotton Mills (P) ... on 9 June, 2016
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.06.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.No.11453 of 2016 and Crl.MP.No.5849 of 2016 K.K.Velusamy Proprietor M/s.KKV Garments C/o.KVB Garments No.2/820, Jothi Nagar, Kumaran College Opposite, Periandipalayam Post, Tiruppur. ...Petitioner Vs. M/s.Sri Hari Krishna Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., Having its Office at S.F.No.61, C.P.N.Road, Tiruppur. Rep. by its authorised person Mr.R.Sathyamoorthy S/o.Rajendran Pillan Residing at 5/375, Ganesa Nagar, Duraisamipuram, Pitchampalayampudhur, Tiruppur. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to set aside the portion of the order dated 25.04.2016 passed in the C.M.P.No.3816 of 2016 in C.C.No.283 of 2013 by the Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level, Tiruppur, in respect of the portion that rejecting the claim of the petitioner in respect of other witnesses. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside a portion of the order dated 25.04.2016 passed in the C.M.P.No.3816 of 2016 in C.C.No.283 of 2013 by the learned Fast Track Court, Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur,
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as complainant and accused. It is the case of the complainant that he supplied materials to the accused, to which, the accused had issued cheques dated 17.11.2011 for Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.3,86,500/-, which when presented were dishonoured. The complainant issued statutory notice on 04.01.2012, for which the accused did not give any reply nor did he make the payment. Therefore, the complainant lodged a prosecution in C.C.No.283 of 2013 against the accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant examined himself as witness and he was ultimately cross-examined by the accused only on 18.01.2016. Thereafter, the complainant appears to have filed a petition for marking certain documents which appears to have been allowed by the trial Court.
4. While so, when the matter was posted for arguments, the accused filed C.M.P.No.3816 of 2016 in C.C.No.283 of 2013 on the file of Fast Track Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for examining himself as witness and also for summoning the complainant's bank, accused bank and other witnesses. Despite the direction of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2015, to complete the trial within three months, the trial Court apparently allowed the petition and permitted the accused to examine himself as witness by the impugned order, which is under challenge.
3. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the trial Court should have allowed the entire prayer of the accused.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court inasmuch as the accused itself has filed a petition for prolonging the trial. The accused has not even stated in the petition how the evidence of the complainant's bank, accused bank and other witnesses will be relevant for the just decision of the case. A petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., cannot be allowed merely at the request of the party. In this case, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for summoning the said witness.
5. In the result, the petition is devoid of merits and dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
6. The petitioner is directed to furnish a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court under Section P.N.PRAKASH,J.
ds 88 Cr.P.C., as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association and Others Vs. Union of India and Others 2014-2-LW [Crl] 400. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
09.06.2016 ds Crl.O.P.No.11453 of 2016