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

2008 Supreme(Mad) 77

M.JEYAPAUL
Nakkheerangopal – Appellant
Versus
Kovai Thangam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P.T. Perumal, Advocate. For the Respondent:V. Gopinath, Senior Counsel, Mahendran, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore rejecting the plea of the petitioner who is the first accused in C.C.No.200 of 2004 to examine five co-accused as witnesses on his side. Of course, the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore was pleased to permit the petitioner to examine the sole independent witness cited in the list of witnesses placed before the court.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in a case launched against him for offences under sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code. After questioning the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore offered an opportunity to the accused to lead evidence on their side. At that stage, the first accused, who is the petitioner herein, filed a list of witnesses to be examined as defence witnesses. The learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to reject the plea of the accused to examine the witnesses shown in the list produced.

3. A revision in Crl.R.P.No.160 of 2000 was preferred by the first accused before the Court of Sessions. The said Criminal Revision Petition was taken on f









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