Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

S.Ramalingam vs S.Venugopal on 5 December, 2018

Author: N.Anand Venkatesh

Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh

                                                          1



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 05.12.2018

                                                      CORAM:

                                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                        Crl.O.P.Nos.13168 to 13171 of 2014


                 S.Ramalingam                             ... Petitioner in all Crl.O.Ps

                                                          Vs.

                 S.Venugopal                              ..Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.13168/2014

                 R.Venkatesh                              ..Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.13169/2014

                 L.Jayanna                                ..Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.13170/2014

                 P.R.Nagarajan                            ..Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.13171/2014


                 COMMON PRAYER: These Criminal Original Petition have been filed under Section
                 407 of Criminal Procedure Code, to transfer the case in S.T.C.Nos.2 of 2013, 186,
                 285 and 187 of 2012 respectively on the file of Judicial Magistrate (FTC) Hosur, to
                 some other Judicial Magistrate at Dharmapuri.


                             For Petitioner in Crl.O.Ps              : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
                             For Respondent in
                              Crl.O.P.No.13168 & 13171/2014          : Mr.K.Elangovan
                             For Respondent in
                              Crl.O.P.No.13169 & 13170/2014          : Mr.A.Balamurugan


                                                  COMMON ORDER

These petitions have been filed seeking for transfer of proceedings, http://www.judis.nic.in pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate(FTC), Hosur. 2

2 The petitioner is facing trial before the Court below for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The proceedings were initiated in the year 2013. These cases reached the stage of trial and PW1 was also examined. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition to recall PW1 and the same was also dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Session Judge, Hosur, challenging the dismissal of the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. This petition has been disposed of as not maintainable.

3 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Magistrate is prejudiced and is not giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to conduct the case. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is aged more than 70 years and therefore, the petitioner is facing ailments and the Court below is not even taking that into consideration.

4 The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the case is at the stage of final hearing and at this stage, these petitions have been filed seeking for transfer of the proceedings. The learned counsel would further submit that the petition has been filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings.

http://www.judis.nic.in 3 5 This Court considered the submissions made on either side. 6 The ground with regard to the prejudice on the part of the Magistrate, is no longer alive, in view of the fact that, the Magistrate, who was functioning in the year 2014, is no more these in the concerned Court. The second ground raised by the petitioner is that he should be given sufficient opportunity to conduct the trial and the same has been denied by virtue of dismissal of the application filed by him under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. If an order has been passed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and thereby denied the petitioner an opportunity to recall and cross examine PW1, the petitioner ought to have filed an appropriate petition before this Court, challenging the same. The petitioner has not done so in this case. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any complaint about the denial of opportunity.

7 In so far as the ground of physical ailment is concerned, the petitioner can always be represented by a counsel and an appropriate application can been filed before the Court below to dispense with his appearance during the date of hearing.

8 This Court is not able to find any ground for transfer of proceedings. The complaint is of the year 2013 and therefore, necessary direction will have to be given to the Court below to complete the proceedings. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

rpl 9 This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to complete the proceedings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.





                                                                                         05.12.2018


                 Index         : Yes / No

                 rpl


                 To

                 The Judicial Magistrate (FTC) Hosur.




                                                               Crl.O.P.Nos.13168 to 13171 of 2014




http://www.judis.nic.in                                                                  05.12.2018