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

T.SUDANTHIRAM
Chennai Covai Logistics, Rep. by its Partner Elango & R. Muralidharan – Appellant
Versus
S. Egyasamy – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel For the Parties :
For the Petitioners:T.M. Karthikeyan, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

T. Sudanthiram, J.—The petitioners herein are the accused in S.T.R.No.581 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem and they are facing charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the complainant examining his witnesses, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Afterwards, the evidence on the side of the defence was closed and the arguments of both sides were heard and the case was posted for Judgment on 08.06.2010. On 08.06.2010, the learned Magistrate had reopened the case for further examination of the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and adjourned the case to 11.06.2010. Aggrieved by the above same, the petitioners herein have preferred this Criminal Revision.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after the evidence on the side of the defence was over and also after hearing the arguments of both sides, reopening the case for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not permissible in law and it would cause grave prejudice to the accused. The learned Magistrate ought to have put all the incriminating materials and questioned the accused after the examination of all the pr







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