BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 16.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

and

Crl.M.P.(MD).No.19989 of 2025

Nasarkhan ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamilnadu rep. by, its,

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Theni Police Station,

Theni.

2.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its,

The Inspector of Police,

Theni Police Station,

Theni District.

(In Crime No2288 of 2020)

3.Chinnakaruppan ... Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records and set aside the order dated 30.10.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.232 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.195 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sesssions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA), Theni, and allow the

above petition.

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Anbarasi For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, (for R1 & R2)

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Seeking to set aside the order dated 30.10.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.232 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.195 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sesssions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA), Theni, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

2. Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.195 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sesssions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA), Theni and he filed an application under Section 348 of BNSS, to recall witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.10 for cross examination in Spl.S.C.No.195 of 2020. However, the same came to be dismissed by the learned trial Judge vide order dated 30.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.232 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.195 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA), Theni and hence, he seeks the indulgence of this Court to allow this petition.

4.Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents Police 1 and 2 categorically submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge. In this regard, he relied upon Paragraph No.5.(iii) of the impugned order, wherein the learned trial Judge had clearly recorded that P.W.1 was examined in chief on 05.09.2024, P.W.2 was examined in chief on 19.03.2025, P.W.6 and P.W.7 were examined in chief on 30.04.2025 and P.W.10 was examined in chief 10.09.2025. Further, P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are working in Police Department and P.W.6 and P.W.7 were examined on 30.04.2025. But, having failed to cross examine those witnesses on the same day of examination in chief, the petitioner had filed an application to recall all those witnesses stating the reason that on that particular day of examination in chief, the learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court was engaged in some other Court in some other destination, despite the witnesses being examined on various dates. Hence, the learned trial Judge without accepting the reason put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner dismissed the same. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon Section 14 of the SC/ST Act, which mandates that the trial court should complete trial in special cases as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months. In the instant case, even after three months from the commencement of the trial, the petitioner with an intention to protract the trial, has filed this application and hence, he categorically contended that this petition should be dismissed.

5.However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner insisted that the petitioner would ensure that all the witnesses are examined on the same day and would also pay the witness batta to all the witnesses sought to be recalled, and hence, he sought the indulgence of this Court by requesting at least one opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

6.This Court is of the considered opinion that the accused should not be denie