SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Mad) 59

N.ARUMUGHAM
PONNUSAMY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:Geetha Ramaseshan, R. Raghupathy, Advocates.

Judgment :

N. ARUMUGHAM, J.

1. THE present revision filed under Secs. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, in Cr1. M. P. No. 20 of 1993 in Sessions Case No. 193 of 1992 dated 11. 3. 1993, rejecting the prayer of the accused made in the above criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. SHORT facts which led to the filing of this revision may be stated as follows: Petitioner herein, being accused in the above sessions case, for offences under Sees. 302 and 379, I. P. C. was facing trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and during the course of which, 8 witnesses were examined. After their examination, the accused, who is the revision petitioner herein, filed a petition under Sec. 319 of the Code before the trial court for the arrest of the witnesses Mohan and Subban, who were also stated as prosecution witnesses in this case, since the evidence let in by the prosecution so far implicates the said persons also for the offences charged. It was objected to on behalf of the prosecution, namely, the State, by the Inspector of Police, Sat


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top