IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA R.Annadurai Petitioners Vs

1. The State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhachalam Division, Station House Officer, Mangalampettai Police Station, Crime No.96 of 2023, Cuddalore District.

2.Kuppan Respondents PRAYER Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to set aside the order dated 11.11.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.1185 of 2025 in SC No.35 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA), Cuddalore by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents: Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

For R1

ORDER

This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Cuddalore (FAC), dismissing the petition filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to recall and cross-examine the witness, PW1, Sidharth along with other eye witnesses.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an accused in S.C. No.35 of 2023 pending trial for offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocites)

Amendment Act, 2015.

3. He would further submit that the case was posted on 08.08.2025 for examination of LW1 to LW3. However, in the evening, LW-3, the child witness was examined as PW-1 and the prosecution did not examine LW-1 and LW-2 on that day and finding that there is every chance for the prosecution to fill up the lacuna if the petitioner had cross examined the witness on the same day, the petitioner deferred cross-examination (PW-1) on 08.08.2025 and immediately on the next hearing date, i.e., 25.08.2025, the petitioner had filed an application to recall and cross-examine the witnesses. The Trial Court, holding that the petitioner had not chosen to file any defer petition under Section 254 (3) of the BNSS/Section 231(2) of Cr.P.C even at that stage, had dismissed the application.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner was unable to file the defer petition since the examination of witness was done in the fag end of the day. He would further submit that PW-1 is a crucial witness and if the petitioner is not allowed to recall and cross-examine PW-1, it would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner’s case and it would amount to the case of no cross. He would submit that if one chance is given to the petitioner, the petitioner is ready to cross-examine the witness on a single day and pay costs for production of the witness.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that PW-1 is a child witness and the trial court, finding that the petitioner had not chosen to file any defer petition under Section 254 (3) of the BNSS, had dismissed the application. The trial court held that PW-1 is a child witness, who had appeared along with his grandfather and it would be difficult for the child witness to come alone to the Court. He would further submit that there are

8 witnesses to be examined and the case stand posted to 20.02.2026.

6. This Court enquired the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

whether the respondent will be able to produce PW-1 along with a guardian viz., grandfather (PW-3).

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on instructions from the respondent police, replied in the affirmative.

8. Though there had been lapses on the part of the petitioner in not filing the petition under Section 254 (3) of the BNSS, the submission made by the counsel is that the witness was examined at late hours before the trial court and for want of time, he was unable to cross examine the witnesses on the same day. Further, he also had an apprehension that there would be a chance by the pros