Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
Chinnathai & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State represented by its, Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. O.P. (MD). No. 1743 of 2024 & Crl. M.P. (MD). No. 1286 of 2024
Decided On : 06-02-2024
Transfer of Trial - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Summary: The court directed the trial court not to pronounce judgment without affording the accused an opportunity to examine their witnesses. The trial judge was granted discretion to examine the witnesses physically or on virtual mode. The accused were also given the right to examine defense witnesses, subject to the trial judge's discretion. The court rejected the transfer of the part-heard trial case due to bald allegations against the presiding judge and the prosecution team.
Fact of the Case:
The petition sought to transfer the trial from one Sessions Court to another, citing issues with the examination of witnesses and the refusal of bail for the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the trial court not to pronounce judgment without affording the accused an opportunity to examine their witnesses. The trial judge was granted discretion to examine the witnesses physically or on virtual mode. The accused were also given the right to examine defense witnesses, subject to the trial judge's discretion. The court rejected the transfer of the part-heard trial case due to bald allegations against the presiding judge and the prosecution team.
Issues: Transfer of trial, examination of witnesses, refusal of bail, and the right to examine defense witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of affording the accused an opportunity to examine their witnesses before pronouncing judgment. It granted the trial judge discretion in conducting the examination of witnesses and allowed the accused to examine defense witnesses, subject to conditions imposed by the trial judge. The court also rejected the transfer of the part-heard trial case due to unsubstantiated allegations.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was disposed of with directions to the trial court and the rejection of the transfer request. Connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to transfer the case in S.C.No.112 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Court (Fast Track Mahila Court) Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur to learned Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Madurai.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition had been filed seeking direction to withdraw the trial from the learned Sessions Court (Fast Track Mahila Court) Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioners were not granted bail and they were still in prison. As per the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD).No.22175 of 2023 dated 07.12.2023, the Trial Court was directed to examine PW21 on 18.12.2023, thereby the Petitioners/ Accused No.1 and 2 in S.C.No.112 of 2022 shall be afforded an opportunity to cross examine without fail.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first Respondent on instructions submitted that the PW21 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had already deposed evidence. At that time, he was cross examined, only to harass him, the accused had filed the petition to recall PW21, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur in Crl.M.P.No.2240 of 2023 dated 27.09.2023, against which Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22175 of 2023 was filed and this Court vide order dated 07.12.2023 directed the learned Sessions Judge to afford an opportunity to the Petitioners herein.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also invited attention of this Court to the 'B' Diary extract furnished by the Petitioners in the typed set filed along with this Petition. It is the further submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the PW21, since serving at Krishnagiri far away from Virudhunagar, was unable to appear on short notice, sought to be examined by virtual mode, which was accepted by the learned Judge, but the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners herein vehemently opposed and it is nothing but harassing the witnesses. Therefore, on 29.01.2024, the PW21 appeared physically. At that time, even though he was available before the Court, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners did not cross examine. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor furnished the daily status uploaded on the website of the Court and it is extracted as follows:
Mahila Court, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar
In the Court of : Sessions Judge, Mahila Court
CNR Number : TNVR110004832022
Case Number : SC/0000112/2022
The Inspector of Police, Thiruthangal P.S versus Chinnathai
Date : 29-01-2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Business : A1, A2 produced, R.E. Till 02.02.2024, pw 21 present but counsel not present, Informed Honble High Court call on 02.02.2024.
Next Purpose : Evidence
Next Hearing Date : 02-02-2024
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court
Mahila Court, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar
In the Court of : Sessions Judge, Mahila Court
CNR Number : TNVR110004832022
Case Number : SC/0000112/2022
The Inspector of Police, Thiruthangal P.S versus Chinnathai
Date : 02-02-2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business : A1, A2 produced, R.E. Till 07.02.2024. For further Proceedings by 07.02.2024.
Next Purpose : For further Proceedings
Next Hearing Date : 07-02-2024
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court
5. By way of rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners were not informed in advance on the appearance of PW21 on 29.01.2024.
6. When the learned Counsel for the Petitioners before the Trial Court was engaged in a Trial in the different Court, he was informed through mobile phon
The importance of affording the accused an opportunity to examine their witnesses before pronouncing judgment, and the discretion granted to the trial judge in conducting the examination of witnesses....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the right of the accused to a fair trial, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, even in the face of difficulties in attending c....
The principle of fair trial and the necessity to consider the facts of the case in ensuring a just decision.
The right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial in criminal proceedings.
The court emphasizes the right to cross-examine key witnesses to uphold fair trial principles.
The court allows an opportunity for cross-examination by a self-represented accused, emphasizing justice in procedural matters.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
