Madras High Court
Yuvaraj vs The State Rep. By on 3 June, 2019
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.06.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.7683 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.4197 of 2019
1. Yuvaraj
2. Gowtham
3. Karthik
4. Ramachandran
5. Somasundaram ...Petitioners
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police
Komarapalayam Police Station,
Komarapalayam,
Namakkal District. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to set
aside the order dated 20.02.2019 made in C.M.P.No.225 of 2019 in S.C.No.70 of
2017 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy
For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below allowing the petition filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to send summon to http://www.judis.nic.in LW-8 for examination on the side of the prosecution.
2
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-8 and they were also cross examined by the petitioner and the petitioner was also questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case was transferred from the Assistant Sessions Court, Tiruchengodu to the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. The witnesses on both sides were closed and the case was at the stage of final arguments. At this stage, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to examine LW-8.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application was vehemently opposed by the petitioner by filing a counter and according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is a clear case of filling up the lacuna by the prosecution and the same should not be permitted. In order to substantiate his submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgement reported in 2018-2-LW(Crl) 721 (Gayes Vs. State).
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent police submitted that the witnesses who were sought to be examined by the prosecution are already shown as a witness in the list of witnesses and therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to have been taken by surprise. The learned Counsel submitted that the Court below has exercised its jurisdiction http://www.judis.nic.in 3 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by giving cogent reasons and there is no ground for interfering with the order of the Court below. The learned Counsel further submitted that the examination of the further witnesses is required to enable the prosecution to prove its case and to enable the trial Court to arrive at a just decision.
5. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials placed on record. LW-8 is the VAO Assistant, this witness was already shown in the list of witnesses and he was not examined by the prosecution on the earlier occasion. Now the prosecution wants to examine the witness and the Court below has rightly allowed the petition mainly on the ground that the prosecution has to be given sufficient opportunity to prove its case and his evidence is necessary for coming to a just decision.
6. Even if the prosecution evidence is closed, it is still open for the prosecution to invoke the powers of the Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by examining any witness and if the Court is of the opinion that the examination of such a witness is essential for it to arrive at a just decision, it is the duty of the Court to summon and examine such person. A very wide discretion is given to the trial Court in this regard.
7. This Court is not able to agree with the learned Counsel for the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 petitioner that the prosecution is trying to filling up the lacuna by examining witnesses after the evidence has been closed. The witness who is sought to be examined is already shown in the list of witnesses and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been taken by surprise. That apart, the petitioner will still have an opportunity to cross examine the witness and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has lost any valuable right in the prosecution examining LW-8.
8. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below and there are no grounds to interfere with the same for examination of LW-8. It goes without saying that the petitioner will be given sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witness examined by the prosecution.
9. In the result this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
10. The Court below is directed to complete the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
03.06.2019
Index : Yes / No
ksa-2/drl
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Namakkal.
2.The Inspector of Police
Komarapalayam Police Station,
Komarapalayam,
Namakkal District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ksa-2
Crl.O.P.No.7683 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.4197 of 2019
03.06.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in